Export a component AST to idiomatic React, Svelte, Vue, or standalone web component code. Pick the target framework to generate production-ready, accessible code.
Exports a component to idiomatic React + Tailwind, Svelte 5 (Runes), Vue 3, or standalone Custom Web Element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Export framework | |
| component | Yes | The component AST |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not state whether the export is a pure read/conversion that returns code, whether it writes files, or whether it modifies the component AST. This is a meaningful gap for an agent choosing and invoking the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and scope without filler. Every part earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information appears immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or produces. It does not. It also says little about the component AST structure beyond what the schema already states. This leaves the agent uncertain about the expected result of invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic detail beyond the schema by specifying 'idiomatic', 'React + Tailwind', 'Svelte 5 (Runes)', 'Vue 3', and 'standalone Custom Web Element', which clarifies what each target enum value practically maps to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Exports a component' to a defined set of output targets. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like producer_generate_component or producer_mutate_component by focusing on export/conversion rather than generation or mutation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: use this when you need to convert a component AST into framework-specific code. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as producer_generate_component or producer_mutate_component.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.