Provides examples and integration patterns for implementing GridStack.js drag-and-drop grid layouts in Angular applications
Provides custom CSS examples and styling resources for GridStack.js grid layouts and widget components
Provides component-scoped styling integration for GridStack.js widgets using CSS Modules methodology
Provides comprehensive access to GridStack.js API through MCP tools for creating dynamic drag-and-drop grid layouts and interactive widget systems
Runs as a Node.js-based MCP server providing access to GridStack.js functionality through the Model Context Protocol
Distributed and managed as an npm package with dependencies installable through npm package manager
Provides examples, hooks, and integration patterns for implementing GridStack.js drag-and-drop grid layouts in React applications
Provides comprehensive Tailwind CSS integration for styling GridStack.js grids with utility-first CSS classes and custom grid column configurations
Provides full TypeScript support with detailed schemas and type definitions for GridStack.js API interactions
Supports Yarn package manager for dependency installation and project build processes
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@GridStack MCP Server initialize a 12-column dashboard grid with auto cell height"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for GridStack.js - the powerful drag-and-drop grid layout library. This server provides complete access to GridStack's API through MCP tools and resources, making it easy to build dynamic dashboard layouts, responsive grids, and interactive widget systems.
Grid Management: Initialize, destroy, enable/disable grids
Widget Operations: Add, remove, update, move, resize widgets
Layout Control: Compact, float mode, column management
Responsive Design: Breakpoint configuration and responsive layouts
Serialization: Save and load grid layouts to/from JSON
Event Handling: Complete event system for grid interactions
26+ Tools: Comprehensive coverage of GridStack API
Rich Resources: Examples, templates, and documentation
Framework Integration: React, Vue, Angular examples
CSS Support: Tailwind CSS and CSS modules integration
Type Safety: Full TypeScript support with detailed schemas
Related MCP server: ServiceTitan MCP Server
Node.js 18+
npm or yarn
Clone the repository:
git clone <repository-url>
cd gridstack-mcp-serverInstall dependencies:
yarn install
# or
npm installBuild the project:
yarn build
# or
npm run build# Build and start the server
yarn build && yarn start
# Development mode with auto-rebuild
yarn devThe server runs on stdio and follows the MCP protocol. Here's how to integrate it with different MCP clients:
Add to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"gridstack": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/gridstack-mcp-server/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}{
"mcp.servers": {
"gridstack": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["./dist/index.js"],
"cwd": "/path/to/gridstack-mcp-server"
}
}
}Test with basic MCP commands:
# List available tools
echo '{"jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "tools/list"}' | node dist/index.js
# Initialize a grid
echo '{"jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "tools/call", "params": {"name": "gridstack_init", "arguments": {"options": {"column": 12, "cellHeight": "auto"}}}}' | node dist/index.js
# List resources
echo '{"jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "resources/list"}' | node dist/index.jsTool | Description |
| Initialize new GridStack instance |
| Destroy grid instance |
| Enable/disable grid interactions |
| Create grid with options and children |
Tool | Description |
| Add new widget to grid |
| Remove widget from grid |
| Update widget properties |
| Move widget to new position |
| Resize widget dimensions |
| Convert DOM element to widget |
| Remove all widgets |
Tool | Description |
| Compact grid layout |
| Enable/disable floating mode |
| Change number of columns |
| Update cell height |
| Update grid margins |
| Batch multiple operations |
Tool | Description |
| Save layout to JSON |
| Load layout from JSON |
| Get all grid items |
| Get current margins |
| Get column count |
| Get float state |
Tool | Description |
| Check if widget fits |
| Check if area is empty |
| Get current cell height |
| Convert pixels to grid cells |
Tool | Description |
| Add event listener |
| Remove event listener |
Tool | Description |
| Configure breakpoints |
The server provides several built-in resources:
gridstack://documentation/api - Complete API documentation
gridstack://examples/basic - Basic GridStack implementation
gridstack://examples/responsive - Responsive grid example
gridstack://examples/react - React integration
gridstack://examples/vue - Vue integration
gridstack://templates/dashboard - Dashboard template
gridstack://css/custom - Custom CSS examples
// Initialize a 12-column grid with auto height
const grid = GridStack.init({
column: 12,
cellHeight: "auto",
margin: 10,
float: false,
});// Add a widget with specific position and size
grid.addWidget({
x: 0,
y: 0,
w: 3,
h: 2,
content: '<div class="my-widget">Content</div>',
id: "widget1",
});// Set up responsive breakpoints
grid.setResponsive([
{ w: 768, c: 1 }, // Mobile: 1 column
{ w: 992, c: 6 }, // Tablet: 6 columns
{ w: 1200, c: 12 }, // Desktop: 12 columns
]);// Save current layout
const layout = grid.save(true);
localStorage.setItem("dashboard-layout", JSON.stringify(layout));
// Load saved layout
const savedLayout = JSON.parse(localStorage.getItem("dashboard-layout"));
grid.load(savedLayout);The server includes comprehensive Tailwind CSS support for modern, utility-first styling:
# Install Tailwind CSS
npm install -D tailwindcss @tailwindcss/forms @tailwindcss/typography
npx tailwindcss init// tailwind.config.js
module.exports = {
content: ["./src/**/*.{html,js,ts,jsx,tsx}"],
theme: {
extend: {
gridTemplateColumns: {
"gs-1": "repeat(1, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-2": "repeat(2, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-3": "repeat(3, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-4": "repeat(4, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-5": "repeat(5, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-6": "repeat(6, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-7": "repeat(7, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-8": "repeat(8, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-9": "repeat(9, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-10": "repeat(10, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-11": "repeat(11, minmax(0, 1fr))",
"gs-12": "repeat(12, minmax(0, 1fr))",
},
},
},
plugins: [],
};/* Custom GridStack + Tailwind integration */
.grid-stack {
@apply relative;
}
.grid-stack-item {
@apply absolute transition-all duration-200 ease-in-out;
}
.grid-stack-item-content {
@apply h-full w-full rounded-lg border border-gray-200 bg-white p-4 shadow-sm hover:shadow-md;
}
.grid-stack-item-content.ui-draggable-dragging {
@apply shadow-lg ring-2 ring-blue-500 ring-opacity-50;
}
.grid-stack-item-content.ui-resizable-resizing {
@apply shadow-lg ring-2 ring-green-500 ring-opacity-50;
}
/* Responsive grid utilities */
.grid-stack-1 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-1;
}
.grid-stack-2 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-2;
}
.grid-stack-3 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-3;
}
.grid-stack-4 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-4;
}
.grid-stack-5 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-5;
}
.grid-stack-6 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-6;
}
.grid-stack-7 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-7;
}
.grid-stack-8 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-8;
}
.grid-stack-9 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-9;
}
.grid-stack-10 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-10;
}
.grid-stack-11 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-11;
}
.grid-stack-12 {
@apply grid-cols-gs-12;
}<!-- Modern Dashboard Widget -->
<div class="grid-stack-item" gs-x="0" gs-y="0" gs-w="4" gs-h="3">
<div
class="grid-stack-item-content bg-gradient-to-br from-blue-50 to-indigo-100 border-indigo-200"
>
<div class="flex items-center justify-between mb-4">
<h3 class="text-lg font-semibold text-gray-900">Sales Overview</h3>
<div class="flex space-x-2">
<button class="p-1 text-gray-400 hover:text-gray-600">
<svg class="w-4 h-4" fill="currentColor" viewBox="0 0 20 20">
<path
d="M10 6a2 2 0 110-4 2 2 0 010 4zM10 12a2 2 0 110-4 2 2 0 010 4zM10 18a2 2 0 110-4 2 2 0 010 4z"
/>
</svg>
</button>
</div>
</div>
<div class="space-y-3">
<div class="flex justify-between items-center">
<span class="text-sm text-gray-600">This Month</span>
<span class="text-2xl font-bold text-indigo-600">$24,500</span>
</div>
<div class="w-full bg-gray-200 rounded-full h-2">
<div class="bg-indigo-600 h-2 rounded-full" style="width: 75%"></div>
</div>
<p class="text-sm text-green-600">ā +12% from last month</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>For component-scoped styling, the server supports CSS Modules:
/* Widget.module.css */
.widget {
background: linear-gradient(135deg, #667eea 0%, #764ba2 100%);
border-radius: 12px;
padding: 1.5rem;
color: white;
box-shadow: 0 4px 6px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1);
transition: transform 0.2s ease-in-out;
}
.widget:hover {
transform: translateY(-2px);
box-shadow: 0 8px 15px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2);
}
.widgetHeader {
display: flex;
justify-content: space-between;
align-items: center;
margin-bottom: 1rem;
padding-bottom: 0.5rem;
border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.2);
}
.widgetTitle {
font-size: 1.125rem;
font-weight: 600;
margin: 0;
}
.widgetValue {
font-size: 2rem;
font-weight: 700;
margin: 0.5rem 0;
}
.widgetChart {
flex: 1;
background: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.1);
border-radius: 8px;
display: flex;
align-items: center;
justify-content: center;
min-height: 120px;
}// Widget.jsx
import styles from "./Widget.module.css";
const Widget = ({ title, value, change, children }) => {
return (
<div className="grid-stack-item" gs-w="3" gs-h="2">
<div className={`grid-stack-item-content ${styles.widget}`}>
<div className={styles.widgetHeader}>
<h3 className={styles.widgetTitle}>{title}</h3>
</div>
<div className={styles.widgetValue}>{value}</div>
{change && <p className={styles.widgetChange}>{change}</p>}
{children && <div className={styles.widgetChart}>{children}</div>}
</div>
</div>
);
};// Define custom widget templates
const widgetTemplates = {
chart: {
w: 4,
h: 3,
content: '<div class="chart-widget">Chart Content</div>',
minW: 2,
minH: 2,
},
kpi: {
w: 2,
h: 2,
content: '<div class="kpi-widget">KPI Content</div>',
noResize: true,
},
};
// Use templates
grid.addWidget(widgetTemplates.chart);// Listen to grid events
grid.on("change", (event, items) => {
console.log("Layout changed:", items);
// Auto-save layout
localStorage.setItem("layout", JSON.stringify(grid.save()));
});
grid.on("added", (event, items) => {
console.log("Widget added:", items);
});
grid.on("removed", (event, items) => {
console.log("Widget removed:", items);
});// Batch multiple operations
grid.batchUpdate(true);
grid.addWidget(widget1);
grid.addWidget(widget2);
grid.addWidget(widget3);
grid.batchUpdate(false); // Triggers single 'change' eventimport { useEffect, useRef, useState } from "react";
import { GridStack } from "gridstack";
export const useGridStack = (options = {}) => {
const gridRef = useRef(null);
const [grid, setGrid] = useState(null);
useEffect(() => {
if (gridRef.current) {
const gridInstance = GridStack.init(options, gridRef.current);
setGrid(gridInstance);
return () => gridInstance.destroy();
}
}, []);
return { gridRef, grid };
};// useGridStack.js
import { ref, onMounted, onUnmounted } from "vue";
import { GridStack } from "gridstack";
export function useGridStack(options = {}) {
const gridRef = ref(null);
const grid = ref(null);
onMounted(() => {
if (gridRef.value) {
grid.value = GridStack.init(options, gridRef.value);
}
});
onUnmounted(() => {
grid.value?.destroy();
});
return { gridRef, grid };
}Each tool accepts specific parameters. Here are the most commonly used:
interface GridStackWidget {
id?: string | number;
x?: number; // X position (0-based)
y?: number; // Y position (0-based)
w?: number; // Width in columns
h?: number; // Height in rows
minW?: number; // Minimum width
maxW?: number; // Maximum width
minH?: number; // Minimum height
maxH?: number; // Maximum height
locked?: boolean; // Lock position/size
noResize?: boolean; // Disable resizing
noMove?: boolean; // Disable moving
content?: string; // HTML content
}interface GridStackOptions {
column?: number; // Number of columns (default: 12)
cellHeight?: number | string; // Cell height ('auto', px, etc.)
margin?: number | string; // Gap between items
float?: boolean; // Enable floating widgets
disableDrag?: boolean; // Disable dragging
disableResize?: boolean; // Disable resizing
animate?: boolean; // Enable animations
acceptWidgets?: boolean; // Accept external widgets
}Fork the repository
Create your feature branch (git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature)
Commit your changes (git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature')
Push to the branch (git push origin feature/amazing-feature)
Open a Pull Request
This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.
GridStack.js - The amazing grid layout library
Model Context Protocol - The protocol this server implements
Anthropic - For the MCP specification and Claude integration
š Documentation
š Issue Tracker
š¬ Discussions
Happy Grid Building! šÆ
Create a new grid with options and children (static method)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent | Yes | Parent element selector | |
| opt | No | Grid options including children |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'static method' but doesn't explain what that implies (e.g., no instance required, side effects). It fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read or write operation, if it modifies the DOM, or what happens on errors.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('Create a new grid'). However, the phrase 'static method' is ambiguous and could be clarified or omitted for better clarity without losing essential information.
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?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or how this tool interacts with the DOM or other grid operations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('parent' and 'opt'). The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'options and children', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what's in the structured fields.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a new grid') and mentions key elements ('options and children'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'gridstack_init' or 'gridstack_load'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'gridstack_add_widget' or explain what 'static method' means in this context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gridstack_init' for initialization or 'gridstack_add_widget' for adding individual widgets. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios for creating a grid with children.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add a new widget to the grid
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| widget | Yes | Widget configuration | |
| triggerAddEvent | No | Trigger 'added' event |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't describe what happens after addition (e.g., visual update, event triggering, persistence), whether it requires grid initialization, or potential side effects like layout changes. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No extraneous information or redundancy is present.
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?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how errors are handled, dependencies on other tools like 'gridstack_init', or integration with the broader grid system. For a mutation tool in a rich sibling set, more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, not explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'autoPosition' interacts with 'x'/'y') or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('widget to the grid'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gridstack_update_widget' or 'gridstack_move_widget' by specifying 'new widget', but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'gridstack_make_widget' or 'gridstack_load' which might have overlapping functionality.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'gridstack_make_widget', 'gridstack_update_widget', and 'gridstack_load', the description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Enable/disable batch update mode for efficiency
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | No | Enable (true) or disable (false) batch mode |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool enables/disables a mode for efficiency, but doesn't explain what 'batch update mode' entails (e.g., delays rendering, batches multiple changes), potential side effects (e.g., performance impact, need to disable after use), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence: 'Enable/disable batch update mode for efficiency.' Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and benefit without any redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a mode-setting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'batch update mode' does, when to enable/disable it, efficiency trade-offs, and expected outcomes. For a tool that likely affects performance or behavior of other operations, more context is needed to use it effectively.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'flag' parameter clearly documented as enabling or disabling batch mode. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as usage examples or context for the boolean choice. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Enable/disable batch update mode for efficiency.' It specifies the action (enable/disable) and the target (batch update mode), with a clear efficiency benefit. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'gridstack_update_widget' or 'gridstack_save' that might also involve updates, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'efficiency' but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., before multiple widget operations) or exclusions (e.g., not needed for single updates). With many sibling tools for grid operations, this lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update cell height
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| val | No | New cell height (px, 'auto', 'initial', CSS units) | |
| update | No | Update existing widgets |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update cell height' implies a mutation but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., layout changes), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loading the core action and resource without any wasted text. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose in a minimal format, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.
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?
Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'update'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'cell' refers to in the gridstack context, how changes propagate, or what happens on failure. For a tool in a complex sibling set, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('val' and 'update'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying height adjustment, which aligns with but doesn't enhance the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'Update cell height' clearly states the action (update) and target resource (cell height), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gridstack_get_cell_height' or 'gridstack_resize_widget', which would require more specific context about what makes this tool distinct.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gridstack_get_cell_height' (for reading) and 'gridstack_resize_widget' (which might affect height), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this update operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Change the number of columns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| column | Yes | Number of columns or 'auto' | |
| layout | No | How to re-layout widgets | moveScale |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Change' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this affects existing widgets, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it interacts with other grid operations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of grid manipulation and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'changing columns' entails (e.g., reflowing widgets, visual updates), potential errors, or return values. For a mutation tool in a rich sibling set, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'column' parameter (number or 'auto') and 'layout' parameter (enum with default). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or implications.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('number of columns'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'gridstack_get_column' or 'gridstack_set_responsive', which might also relate to column configuration.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gridstack_get_column' (likely for reading) and 'gridstack_set_responsive' (possibly for responsive behavior), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this column-changing operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Compact the grid layout
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layout | No | Compact layout type | moveScale |
| doSort | No | Sort widgets before compacting |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Compact' implies a mutation that rearranges widgets, but the description doesn't specify effects (e.g., whether it's destructive to widget data, requires grid initialization, or has side effects like visual changes). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, which are critical for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('compact') and resource ('grid layout'), making it easy to parse. No extraneous details or redundancy are present, which is ideal for conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity of a layout mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'compact' does (e.g., removes gaps, reflows widgets), the expected outcomes, or prerequisites (e.g., requires an initialized grid). For a tool that likely alters visual state, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (layout type and sorting flag). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'compact' entails for different layout types or the impact of sorting. Since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 'Compact the grid layout' states a clear action ('compact') on a specific resource ('grid layout'), but it's vague about what 'compact' means operationally. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'gridstack_update_widget' or 'gridstack_load', which might also affect layout arrangement. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gridstack_update_widget' for manual adjustments or 'gridstack_load' for setting layouts, the description doesn't indicate scenarios for compacting (e.g., after removals, for optimization). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Destroy the grid instance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| removeDOM | No | Remove DOM elements |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Destroy' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or how it interacts with other grid components. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the description's minimal detail, this is incomplete for a destructive tool. It doesn't explain what 'destroy' means in practice, potential impacts, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter ('removeDOM'), the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are zero required parameters and high schema coverage, the baseline is high. A 4 reflects that the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
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 'Destroy the grid instance' clearly states the action (destroy) and target (grid instance), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'destroy' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gridstack_remove_all' or 'gridstack_remove_widget', making it somewhat vague.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gridstack_remove_all' or 'gridstack_remove_widget'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or typical scenarios for destruction, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Enable or disable the grid
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doEnable | No | Enable (true) or disable (false) the grid |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Enable or disable' implies a state change operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what visual/functional effects result, whether the change is reversible, or any rate limits/constraints. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is perfectly concise at four words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential action.
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?
For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'the grid' refers to in this context, what enabling/disabling actually does, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (grid management system), this description leaves too many questions unanswered.
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 description mentions 'Enable or disable' which aligns with the single boolean parameter's purpose, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage with clear description). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Enable or disable the grid', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gridstack_init (initialization) or gridstack_destroy (removal), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar toggle tools (none exist in the sibling list).
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., grid must be initialized first), when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be related for grid state management.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Enable or disable floating widgets
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| val | No | Enable floating (true) or disable (false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Enable or disable') but lacks details on effects (e.g., whether this changes widget layout dynamically, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's mutation nature (enabling/disabling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what floating widgets are, how this affects the grid, or what the return value might be, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context and behavior.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'val' clearly documented in the schema as a boolean for enabling/disabling floating. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, but since the schema fully covers the single parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.
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 clearly states the action ('Enable or disable') and target resource ('floating widgets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gridstack_get_float' which presumably retrieves the floating status, so it doesn't fully distinguish its specific role within the toolset.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized grid), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'gridstack_get_float' or 'gridstack_enable', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Convert pixel coordinates to grid cell position
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | Yes | ||
| useOffset | No | Use offset coordinates |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic conversion function. It doesn't explain what happens with invalid coordinates, whether the grid must be initialized, error conditions, or the format of the returned cell position. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a coordinate transformation 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a coordinate conversion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or dependencies on grid state, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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 description mentions 'pixel coordinates' which aligns with the 'position' parameter in the schema, but doesn't explain the 'useOffset' parameter or provide additional context beyond what the 50% schema coverage offers. Since schema coverage is exactly 50%, the description doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented parameter, warranting a baseline score.
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 clearly states the tool's function as converting pixel coordinates to grid cell position, which is a specific verb (convert) and resource (pixel coordinates to grid cell). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gridstack_get_grid_items or gridstack_get_cell_height by focusing on coordinate transformation rather than retrieval or measurement.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an initialized grid or compare it to similar tools like gridstack_get_column or gridstack_get_float, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current cell height
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires grid initialization, returns a numeric value or object, has side effects, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cell' means in the gridstack context, what format the height is returned in (e.g., pixels, units), or any dependencies (e.g., requires an initialized grid). For a tool in a complex sibling set, this leaves gaps.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly implies no inputs are required, earning a baseline score of 4 for this scenario.
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 'Get current cell height' clearly states the action (get) and resource (cell height), but it's vague about what 'cell' refers to in the context of gridstack operations. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'gridstack_cell_height' (which might set height) or 'gridstack_get_column' (which retrieves column info).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gridstack_cell_height' (possibly for setting) and 'gridstack_get_grid_items' (for retrieving other grid properties), the description lacks context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current number of columns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify if it requires initialization, returns a numeric value, or has any side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple read tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on return type (e.g., integer, object) or any behavioral context, which could be helpful given the complexity implied by sibling tools.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could theoretically mention implicit dependencies (e.g., grid context). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current number of columns', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gridstack_column' or 'gridstack_get_cell_height', which might have overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'gridstack_column' (which might set or modify columns) and 'gridstack_get_grid_items' (which retrieves grid data), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current float state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify if it requires any permissions, has side effects, returns data in a particular format, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a notable shortfall.
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?
The description is extremely concise ('Get current float state'), consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'float state' means, what the return value might be (e.g., a boolean, string, or object), or how it integrates with other GridStack operations. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is assigned since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
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 'Get current float state' clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') on a specific resource ('float state'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't specify what 'float state' refers to in the context of GridStack (e.g., whether it's a global setting, widget property, or layout feature), making it somewhat vague compared to more specific sibling tools like 'gridstack_get_cell_height' or 'gridstack_get_column'.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, related operations (e.g., if it complements 'gridstack_float'), or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This is a significant gap given the many sibling tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all grid items
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| onlyVisible | No | Only return visible items |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'all grid items' entails (e.g., pagination, format). It's minimal and leaves key operational details unclear.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple purpose. It earns its place by stating the core action clearly.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with one parameter, the description is incompleteāit doesn't explain what 'grid items' are, the return format, or any constraints. For a retrieval tool, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the 'onlyVisible' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage without extra value.
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 'Get all grid items' clearly states the action (get) and resource (grid items), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'gridstack_load' or 'gridstack_save' which might also retrieve items. It's adequate but lacks specificity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gridstack_load' or 'gridstack_save', which might handle grid items differently. The description implies a retrieval operation but offers no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current margin values
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires the grid to be initialized, if it returns a specific data structure, or any error conditions. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with potential dependencies.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'margin values' refer to (e.g., CSS margins, grid spacing), the return format, or any context needed for proper use among many sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter information is provided or needed.
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 'Get current margin values' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current margin values'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gridstack_margin' (which might set margins) or other 'gridstack_get_*' tools, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context (e.g., after initialization, before layout changes), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Initialize a new GridStack instance with specified options
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | No | CSS selector for the grid container element | .grid-stack |
| options | No | GridStack initialization options |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose that this likely mutates the DOM, requires a web environment, or has side effects like enabling interactive widgets. The description lacks details on error conditions, performance implications, or what 'initialization' entails beyond the basic statement.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action and key inputs, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a GridStack object or success status), error handling, or initialization effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely has important behavioral consequences.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'options' customize the instance, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 clearly states the action ('Initialize') and resource ('new GridStack instance'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gridstack_destroy' or 'gridstack_load' by focusing on initial setup, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing DOM element), when to choose this over 'gridstack_load' for restoring state, or typical initialization scenarios, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check if an area is empty
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X position | |
| y | Yes | Y position | |
| w | Yes | Width | |
| h | Yes | Height |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Check if an area is empty') without detailing what 'empty' means (e.g., no widgets, obstacles), the return format (e.g., boolean, error messages), or any side effects like performance impacts. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence ('Check if an area is empty') that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the complexity of a grid/layout system implied by sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what constitutes an 'empty' area, how results are returned, and any behavioral nuances, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and usage in this context.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (x, y, w, h as position and dimensions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain coordinate systems, units, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.
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 'Check if an area is empty' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('area'), but it's vague about what context this area exists in (e.g., a grid or layout system). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'gridstack_will_it_fit', which might have overlapping functionality for area validation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for pre-placement validation, conflict detection, or other scenarios, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Load grid layout from JSON
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layout | Yes | Layout data (JSON array or string) | |
| addAndRemove | No | Add new widgets and remove missing ones |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'Load' entailsāwhether it overwrites existing layouts, requires initialization first, or has side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly conveys the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the result of loading (e.g., visual updates, error handling) or how it interacts with other grid operations, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying JSON input, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 clearly states the verb ('Load') and resource ('grid layout from JSON'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'gridstack_save' or 'gridstack_init', but the action is specific enough to infer basic differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gridstack_init' for initial setup or 'gridstack_save' for saving layouts. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios for loading layouts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Convert an existing DOM element into a grid widget
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| el | Yes | Element selector to convert | |
| options | No | Widget options |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('convert') but doesn't explain what this transformation entails (e.g., whether it modifies the DOM element's properties, adds interactivity, or integrates it into a grid layout). It lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or what 'grid widget' means functionally.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool (converting DOM elements) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what happens after conversion (e.g., how the widget behaves, return values, or error handling), leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('el' as element selector and 'options' as widget options with sub-properties). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'convert' implies for these parameters or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('convert') and resource ('existing DOM element into a grid widget'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'gridstack_add_widget' (which likely creates new widgets) and 'gridstack_update_widget' (which modifies existing widgets), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gridstack_add_widget' or 'gridstack_update_widget'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing DOM element) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update grid margin/gap
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Margin value (px or CSS format) | |
| unit | No | CSS unit (px, em, rem, etc.) | px |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify if this affects existing widgets, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like layout reflow. Minimal context is added beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the key action ('Update grid margin/gap'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'margin/gap' means in the grid context, how the update behaves (e.g., immediate effect, validation), or what happens on success/failure. More detail is needed for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters ('value' and 'unit'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameters relate to margin/gap settings, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('grid margin/gap'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this as a configuration tool for grid spacing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'gridstack_cell_height' or 'gridstack_column' which also adjust grid layout properties.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used during grid initialization (vs. 'gridstack_init') or for dynamic adjustments, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an existing grid. The context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Move a widget to a new position
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| el | Yes | Widget selector or ID to move | |
| x | No | New X position | |
| y | No | New Y position |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Move a widget to a new position,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the move is immediate or requires saving, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Move a widget to a new position') that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, or return values. For a tool that modifies widget positions, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure correct invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'el' (widget selector/ID), 'x' (new X position), and 'y' (new Y position). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as coordinate systems or unit details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Move') and resource ('a widget'), specifying the action of repositioning. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gridstack_resize_widget' or 'gridstack_update_widget' by focusing on position changes, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This makes the purpose clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized grid), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'gridstack_update_widget' (which might handle broader updates). Without such context, users must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove event listener
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventName | Yes | Event name to remove listener for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what happens if the listener doesn't exist, whether this affects grid/widget functionality, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks context about the operation's impact.
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?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose in minimal space.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (removing event listeners in a gridstack context) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'event listener' refers to, the context (e.g., grid or widget), or behavioral outcomes. More detail is needed for adequate understanding.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear enum for 'eventName', so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain what these events represent or provide additional context about parameter usage.
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 'Remove event listener' clearly states the action (remove) and target (event listener), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gridstack_on' (which presumably adds listeners) or explain what type of event listener is being removed (e.g., from a gridstack widget/grid).
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have added a listener first), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'gridstack_on' for adding listeners. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add event listener
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventName | Yes | Event name to listen for | |
| callback | Yes | JavaScript callback function code |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., event persistence, memory implications), error handling, or what happens if the same listener is added multiple times. It's minimal and lacks operational context.
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?
Extremely concise with a single phrase 'Add event listener' that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by directly stating the tool's core function without fluff.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that modifies behavior (adding listeners), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the listener does, how it integrates with Gridstack, or what to expect after invocation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's details for 'eventName' and 'callback'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics effectively.
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 'Add event listener' states a general action but lacks specificity about what resource it acts on (Gridstack grid/widget events) and how it differs from sibling 'gridstack_off' (which removes listeners). It's not tautological but remains vague about scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gridstack_off' for removing listeners or other event-related tools. It implies usage for adding listeners but provides no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove all widgets from the grid
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| removeDOM | No | Remove DOM elements |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this operation is destructive or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to widget data, or if there are side effects like layout changes. The parameter 'removeDOM' hints at DOM manipulation but isn't explained in the description.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, perfectly sized for its simple function.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (implied by 'Remove'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively in a grid management context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'removeDOM' documented in the schema as 'Remove DOM elements'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without adding value.
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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('all widgets from the grid'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'gridstack_remove_widget' by specifying 'all' widgets rather than a single one. However, it doesn't specify what 'remove' entails operationally (e.g., deletion, detachment, hiding).
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gridstack_remove_widget' for single widgets or 'gridstack_destroy' for more comprehensive cleanup. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove a widget from the grid
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| el | Yes | Widget selector or ID to remove | |
| removeDOM | No | Remove from DOM as well | |
| triggerEvent | No | Trigger 'removed' event |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes a widget but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the removal is reversible, effects on grid layout, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, as critical behavioral traits are omitted.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly while conveying the core action.
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?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error conditions) and doesn't explain return values or usage context relative to siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all three parameters in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, such as examples or edge cases. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without extra description value.
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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a widget from the grid'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gridstack_remove_all' or 'gridstack_destroy', which also remove widgets or grid elements, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gridstack_remove_all' (removes all widgets) and 'gridstack_destroy' (destroys the entire grid), there's no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Resize a widget
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| el | Yes | Widget selector or ID to resize | |
| width | No | New width in columns | |
| height | No | New height in rows |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool resizes a widget, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., layout changes), permissions required, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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?
The description is extremely concise ('Resize a widget'), which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified, as it lacks any context or detail that could aid the agent. It earns a 4 for zero waste but loses a point for potential under-specification.
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?
Given the tool's mutation nature (resizing implies change), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without additional inference or trial-and-error.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents parameters (el, width, height) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as unit clarifications or constraints on width/height values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Resize a widget' clearly states the action (resize) and target (widget), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'gridstack_update_widget' or 'gridstack_move_widget' which might also modify widget dimensions. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what 'resize' entails in this context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gridstack_update_widget' or 'gridstack_move_widget', which might handle similar operations. The description offers no context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Save grid layout to JSON
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| saveContent | No | Include widget content in save | |
| saveGridOpt | No | Include grid options in save |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool saves to JSON but lacks behavioral details: whether it overwrites existing saves, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasteā'Save grid layout to JSON' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a write operation (save), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full context and implications.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying JSON output, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles documentation adequately.
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 'Save grid layout to JSON' clearly states the action (save) and resource (grid layout) with the output format (JSON). It distinguishes from siblings like 'gridstack_load' (loads layout) and 'gridstack_get_grid_items' (retrieves items), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all 25+ siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after modifying layout), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'gridstack_batch_update' or 'gridstack_update_widget', leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Configure responsive breakpoints
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| breakpoints | Yes | Array of breakpoint configurations |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Configure' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether changes are immediate, require specific permissions, affect existing layouts, or have side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'configure' entails, how breakpoints interact with other grid properties, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.
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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'responsive breakpoints', hinting at the 'breakpoints' parameter, but doesn't explain the semantics of 'w' (window width) or 'c' (columns) in context. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does most of the work.
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 'Configure responsive breakpoints' states a clear action ('configure') and target ('responsive breakpoints'), but it's vague about what exactly is being configured. It doesn't specify whether this applies to a specific grid, widget, or global settings, nor does it distinguish from siblings like 'gridstack_update_widget' or 'gridstack_batch_update' which might also involve configuration.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'gridstack_update_widget' or 'gridstack_batch_update', the description lacks context about prerequisites, timing (e.g., after initialization), or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update widget properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| el | Yes | Widget selector or ID to update | |
| opts | Yes | Properties to update |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update widget properties' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe what happens during the update (e.g., whether changes are immediate, reversible, or require specific permissions), potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic parameter requirements.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Update widget properties') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this minimal but clear phrasing.
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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what the update does to the widget, error handling, or return values. For a tool that modifies state in a system with many sibling operations, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('el' as widget selector/ID and 'opts' as properties to update). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid selectors or property combinations. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Update widget properties' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('widget properties'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'gridstack_add_widget' (creation) and 'gridstack_remove_widget' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar update tools like 'gridstack_batch_update' or 'gridstack_resize_widget'.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing widget), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'gridstack_batch_update' (for multiple widgets) or 'gridstack_resize_widget' (for specific property updates). Without this context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check if a widget will fit at specified position
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| widget | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks fit but doesn't explain what 'fit' means (e.g., collision detection, grid boundaries), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what the output indicates (e.g., boolean success, error details). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential mutation implications.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a grid management system, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like grid initialization, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'specified position' without detailing the 'widget' object's properties (x, y, w, h, id). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain parameter roles or the 'id' field's purpose in collision checks. Baseline is 3 due to the single parameter, but it doesn't fully address the coverage gap.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('widget'), specifying it evaluates fit at a given position. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gridstack_is_area_empty' by focusing on widget-specific placement rather than general area emptiness, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gridstack_is_area_empty' or 'gridstack_add_widget', nor does it mention prerequisites such as grid initialization. It implies usage for widget placement checks but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
gridstack_add_gridgridstack_add_widgetgridstack_batch_updategridstack_cell_heightgridstack_columngridstack_compactgridstack_destroygridstack_enablegridstack_floatgridstack_get_cell_from_pixelgridstack_get_cell_heightgridstack_get_columngridstack_get_floatgridstack_get_grid_itemsgridstack_get_margingridstack_initgridstack_is_area_emptygridstack_loadgridstack_make_widgetgridstack_margingridstack_move_widgetgridstack_offgridstack_ongridstack_remove_allgridstack_remove_widgetgridstack_resize_widgetgridstack_savegridstack_set_responsivegridstack_update_widgetgridstack_will_it_fitScored across 30 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists, such as 'gridstack_init' and 'gridstack_add_grid' both creating grids, and 'gridstack_get_*' tools being similar in retrieval function. Descriptions help clarify differences, but minor confusion could occur in selection.
All tools follow a consistent 'gridstack_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and readable. The naming convention is uniform across all 30 tools, enhancing usability and reducing cognitive load.
With 30 tools, the count is high and feels heavy for a grid management server, potentially overwhelming agents. While the domain is comprehensive, many tools could be consolidated or omitted without losing functionality, indicating an excessive scope.
The tool set provides complete coverage for grid management, including CRUD operations (add, remove, update), configuration (init, enable, destroy), layout handling (save, load, compact), and utility functions (check fit, convert coordinates). No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.
Read and edit GA4, Search Console and Google Tag Manager from any MCP client. 29 tools.
Renders interactive Chart.js charts and dashboards inline in AI conversations. Supports bar, line, area, pie, doughnut, scatter, and radar charts with multi-chart dashboard grids.
Dashboards as data. Author, validate, render, and share dvt dashboards from any MCP client.
Render 47 chart types and tiled dashboards as PNG/SVG. Deterministic, no headless browser.
