Provides tools to inspect and debug React applications, allowing AI agents to view component state, analyze re-rendering behavior, and investigate UI update issues in both web and React Native environments.
Click on "Install 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., "@react-devtools-mcp inspect the current state and props of the Counter component"
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.
Give AI agents eyes into your React app.
.mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"react-devtools": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["react-devtools-bridge"]
}
}
}Web - Add to your HTML (before your app bundle):
<script src="http://localhost:8097"></script>React Native - DevTools is built-in. No extra setup needed.
Teach Claude when to use these tools:
npx add-skill skylarbarrera/react-devtools-mcpOr manually:
cp node_modules/react-devtools-bridge/SKILL.md ~/.claude/skills/react-devtools/SKILL.mdRelated MCP server: React Native Debug MCP
With your React app running, ask Claude things like:
"What's the current state of the Counter component?"
"Why doesn't clicking this button update the UI?"
"Which components are re-rendering too often?"
Skill guide - When and how to use each tool
MIT
Capture screenshot of an element (if supported)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID |
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 mentions 'if supported', hinting at limitations, but does not specify what those limitations are (e.g., platform restrictions, element visibility). It fails to describe critical behaviors such as output format (e.g., image data, file path), error handling, or side effects (e.g., whether it pauses execution). This is inadequate for a tool with potential visual and system interactions.
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 function. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Capture screenshot of an element') and includes a qualifier ('if supported') that, while vague, is concise. There is no wasted verbiage, making it structurally sound.
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 screenshot tool (involving visual capture and potential system dependencies), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain the return value (e.g., image data, success status) or behavioral details like permissions or side effects. The schema covers the parameter, but overall context is lacking for 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Element ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid ID or how to obtain it. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not 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 states the tool's purpose as capturing a screenshot of an element, which is clear but vague. It does not specify what type of element (e.g., UI component, web element) or in what context (e.g., browser, application), and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'highlight_element' or 'scroll_to_element' that might involve visual interactions. The phrase 'if supported' adds uncertainty but does not clarify the 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected element or specific state), exclusions (e.g., unsupported element types), or related tools like 'get_element_by_id' for identifying elements. The lack of context leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Clear all or specific element's errors/warnings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Element ID (optional, clears all if omitted) | |
| clearErrors | No | Clear errors | |
| clearWarnings | No | Clear warnings |
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 ('clear') but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires permissions, has side effects, or what happens after clearing (e.g., confirmation, response format). This leaves significant gaps 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 that front-loads the core action ('clear all or specific element's errors/warnings') with zero wasted words, 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, permissions), response expectations, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by 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 already documents all parameters (id, clearErrors, clearWarnings) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by implying the optional nature of 'id' ('all or specific element's'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond the schema.
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 ('clear') and resource ('errors/warnings') with optional targeting ('all or specific element's'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'toggle_error' or 'get_errors_and_warnings', which would require more specific language about clearing versus toggling or retrieving.
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 'toggle_error' or 'get_errors_and_warnings', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description implies usage for clearing errors/warnings but lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Clear any active element highlight
| 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. It states the action ('clear') but doesn't explain what 'active element highlight' means, whether this affects UI state, or if it requires specific conditions (e.g., an existing highlight). 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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. It's front-loaded with the core action, achieving optimal 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 minimally adequate but lacks context about what constitutes an 'active element highlight' or the tool's effect. It meets basic needs but could be more informative for clarity.
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, earning a baseline score for tools with no 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 ('clear') and resource ('active element highlight'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'highlight_element' or 'inspect_element', but the action is specific enough to infer its role in removing visual indicators.
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 after using 'highlight_element' or in response to user requests to remove highlights. It lacks context about prerequisites or timing, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Connect to React DevTools backend via WebSocket
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Host (default: localhost) | |
| port | No | Port (default: 8097) | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in ms (default: 5000) |
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 mentions the connection method (WebSocket) but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether it's idempotent, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a connection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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 connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what successful connection enables, what data is returned, or error scenarios. Given the complexity of WebSocket connections and the rich sibling toolset, 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('Connect') and target resource ('React DevTools backend via WebSocket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'disconnect' tool, which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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 like 'disconnect' or 'get_connection_status', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for establishing a WebSocket connection. This leaves the agent without usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a path from props/state/hooks/context
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| target | Yes | Target | |
| hookIndex | No | Hook index (if target is hooks) | |
| path | Yes | Path to delete |
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 is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the deletion is reversible, side effects, or error handling. 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 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?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (id, target, hookIndex, path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters (e.g., hookIndex only applies if target is hooks) or path format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a path from props/state/hooks/context'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes the tool by specifying the target domains (props, state, hooks, context), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rename_path' beyond the different action.
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 element ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'rename_path' or mutation tools (e.g., 'override_props'), 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.
Disconnect from React DevTools backend
| 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 full burden but only states what the tool does at surface level. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether disconnection is reversible, what happens to active debugging sessions, if it requires specific connection states, or what the expected outcome is after invocation.
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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information without any fluff or redundant 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'disconnect' means operationally, what state changes occur, or how this interacts with sibling tools like 'connect' and 'get_connection_status', leaving gaps in understanding the tool's 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?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary repetition of what's already in structured data.
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 ('Disconnect') and target ('from React DevTools backend'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect' or explain what disconnection entails versus other state-changing operations.
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 or prerequisites. While the name implies it's the inverse of 'connect', the description doesn't state this relationship, mention when disconnection is appropriate, or warn about consequences of using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get negotiated protocol capabilities (features supported by backend)
| 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-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active connection, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
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 any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function in a clear and structured manner, 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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral expectations, or return values, which are important for a tool in a complex environment with many siblings. It meets the bare minimum but has clear 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?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description adds value by explaining what 'capabilities' means ('features supported by backend'), which goes beyond the empty schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3 for high 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 'Get' and the resource 'negotiated protocol capabilities', with additional context about what these capabilities represent ('features supported by backend'). This is specific and actionable, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_connection_status' or 'health_check', which might also provide backend information.
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 'get_connection_status' and 'health_check' that might overlap in providing backend status, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current component filters
| 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. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not specify if it requires authentication, has side effects, returns structured data, or involves rate limits. This is inadequate for a 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 with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it is front-loaded with minimal information, which could be improved by adding context without sacrificing brevity.
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 does not explain what component filters are, what the return format might be, or how this tool fits into the broader context of sibling tools like 'set_component_filters'. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, 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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add param details, which is appropriate, but it could have clarified the absence of inputs. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the lack of inputs.
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 component filters' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While it indicates a read operation on component filters, it lacks specificity about what component filters are or what resource scope is involved, failing to distinguish meaningfully from sibling tools like 'set_component_filters' or 'search_components'.
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 does not mention prerequisites, context for retrieving filters, or how it differs from related tools like 'set_component_filters' or 'get_component_tree', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the React component tree for all roots
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rootID | No | Filter by root ID (optional) | |
| maxDepth | No | Maximum depth to return (optional) |
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 retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, output format, or potential side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no 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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's 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 read operation with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., tree structure, component details) or behavioral aspects like error handling, making it insufficient for effective agent 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters (rootID and maxDepth) as optional filters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'root' is or how depth affects the tree. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 action ('Get') and resource ('React component tree for all roots'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_components' or 'get_element_by_id', which might also retrieve component information, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.
Get current connection status
| 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 only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like what data is returned (e.g., status codes, timestamps), whether it's safe or has side effects, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a 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 is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'connection status' means, what data is returned, or how it differs from other status-related tools. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this leaves significant 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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add or detract from parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current connection status'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'connection status' entails (e.g., network, device, or session status) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'connect' or 'disconnect', making it vague in 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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a connection must be established first, or contrast with related tools like 'health_check' or 'get_capabilities', leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get basic element info by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID |
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 'get' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify what 'basic element info' includes (e.g., properties, attributes), whether it requires an active connection, or any error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get basic element info by ID') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'basic element info' entails in the return value, nor does it cover behavioral aspects like prerequisites or error cases. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this leaves too much undefined.
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 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Element ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying it's used for retrieval, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 'Get basic element info by ID' clearly states the action (get) and target (element info by ID), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar tools like 'get_element_source' or 'get_elements_by_renderer', which also retrieve element-related information but with different scopes or criteria.
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 'get_element_source' (for source code) and 'get_elements_by_renderer' (for multiple elements), there's no indication that this tool is specifically for 'basic info' by ID, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all elements for a specific renderer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rendererID | Yes | Renderer ID |
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 a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover critical aspects such as whether it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what happens if the rendererID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values (e.g., list format, element structure), error handling, or dependencies, which are essential for an agent to use it correctly without 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'rendererID' documented as 'Renderer ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a renderer is or where to obtain its ID. Since schema coverage is high, 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 'Get all elements for a specific renderer' clearly states the action (get) and resource (elements), but it's vague about what 'elements' means in this context (e.g., UI components, DOM nodes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_element_by_id' by implying a bulk fetch, but lacks specificity on scope or format.
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 explain if this should be used instead of 'get_component_tree' or 'search_components' for renderer-specific queries, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active connection or renderer availability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get source location for an element
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID |
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 non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format of the source location). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential 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 tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., what 'source location' entails), error cases, or dependencies, leaving gaps for the 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Element ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to obtain the ID or its format. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, 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 'Get source location for an element' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('source location'), but it's vague about what 'source location' means (e.g., file path, line number, URL) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'view_source' or 'view_attribute_source', which may have overlapping purposes. It avoids tautology by not restating the name, 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an element ID from another tool), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'view_source', 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.
Get all errors and warnings from components
| 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. It states the action ('Get all errors and warnings') but does not describe how the data is retrieved (e.g., real-time polling, cached results), the format of the output, potential side effects, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. 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 a single, clear sentence: 'Get all errors and warnings from components.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundant information, 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?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error types), how errors and warnings are defined, or any contextual details needed for effective use, leaving the agent with insufficient information for proper 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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, as there is nothing to compensate for, but it does not add extra semantic context beyond the schema.
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 errors and warnings from components' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('errors and warnings from components'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'components' refers to (e.g., UI components, system components) and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'toggle_error' or 'clear_errors_and_warnings', which are related but serve different functions.
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 does not mention scenarios for usage, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools such as 'clear_errors_and_warnings' for clearing errors or 'toggle_error' for toggling error states, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check if native inspection mode is active
| 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. It states the tool 'checks' status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires active inspection mode, has side effects, or details error handling. This is insufficient for a 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 any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context on usage relative to siblings and behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent operation in a complex environment.
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 inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema, earning a baseline score for tools with no 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 ('Check') and resource ('native inspection mode'), specifying what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_inspecting_native' or 'stop_inspecting_native', which prevents 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 such as 'start_inspecting_native' or 'stop_inspecting_native', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get native style and layout info (React Native only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID |
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 retrieves style and layout info, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get native style and layout info') and adds necessary scope ('React Native only'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it efficient 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 (retrieving style/layout data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'style and layout info' entails, how it's returned, or any behavioral traits like error cases. For a tool with these gaps, the description should provide more context to be adequately complete.
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 'id' parameter documented as 'Element ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the 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 tool's purpose as 'Get native style and layout info' with the specific scope 'React Native only', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_element_by_id' or 'get_component_tree' that might also retrieve element information, so it misses full 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 mentions 'React Native only', which implies a context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_element_by_id' for non-style info. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the chain of components that rendered this element
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID |
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 what the tool does ('Get the chain of components') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (likely, but not confirmed), what the output format is (e.g., list, tree, or text), potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or performance implications (e.g., speed for large chains). The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.
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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the chain of components') without unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function in a compact form, with no redundant or verbose phrasing, 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 tool that retrieves component chains (likely for debugging UI frameworks), the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided to clarify behavior, and there's no output schema to describe the return value (e.g., the structure of the component chain). The description alone doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand how to interpret results or handle edge cases, leaving significant gaps in usability.
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 'id' parameter documented as 'Element ID'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid element ID (e.g., numeric identifier from a previous tool) or usage examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract from the schema's adequacy.
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 ('Get') and the target ('chain of components that rendered this element'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_element_by_id' (which retrieves element details) or 'get_component_tree' (which shows component hierarchy) by focusing specifically on the rendering chain for a given element. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type (e.g., UI components in a debugging context), leaving some ambiguity.
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 specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an element ID from another tool like 'get_element_by_id'), exclusions (e.g., not working on non-rendered elements), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_component_tree' (which might show broader component structures). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get profiling data without stopping
| 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 full burden but only states 'without stopping', implying it's a read operation that doesn't interrupt profiling. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, return format, or side effects, which is inadequate for a 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 with the core action and constraint, making it easy to parse quickly, 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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what profiling data is returned, how it's formatted, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively in a complex sibling set.
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
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 profiling data without stopping' states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('profiling data'), but it's vague about what profiling data entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_profiling_status' or 'start_profiling'. It implies ongoing profiling but lacks specificity about data type or 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether profiling must be active), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_profiling_status' or 'stop_profiling', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check if profiling is active
| 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 the tool checks status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'active' means, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it 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 tool's low complexity (0 params) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'profiling' entails in this context, what the return value might be (e.g., boolean, status object), or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'start_profiling'. More context is needed for 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info beyond the schema, but with no params, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 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 'Check if profiling is active' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('profiling'), indicating it retrieves status information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_profiling' or 'stop_profiling', though the distinction is implied by the verb 'Check' versus 'start'/'stop'.
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., whether profiling must be started first), related tools like 'get_profiling_data', or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose 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.
Get a specific renderer by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Renderer ID |
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 'Get' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or the return format. For a 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's 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 complexity of a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'renderer' is in this context, what data is returned, or potential error cases. For a tool in a list with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Renderer ID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific renderer by ID', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_renderers' (plural) or 'get_element_by_id', which might retrieve similar resources, so it lacks sibling distinction for 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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving a single renderer versus using 'get_renderers' for a list, or when to prefer it over 'get_element_by_id' for related queries. This absence of context leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all connected React renderers (for multi-renderer apps)
| 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. It only states what the tool does ('Get all connected React renderers') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects, which is inadequate for a 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 zero waste, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'connected React renderers' means, the return format, or how this differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
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 resource ('all connected React renderers'), specifying it's for multi-renderer apps. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_renderer' (singular) or 'get_elements_by_renderer', leaving some ambiguity in 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'for multi-renderer apps' hints at context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_renderer' or 'get_elements_by_renderer'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get server and connection health status
| 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. It states the tool retrieves health status but doesn't specify what 'health' entails (e.g., uptime, errors, performance metrics), whether it requires authentication, or if it has side effects like logging. This leaves significant gaps for a tool in a debugging/inspection 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get server and connection health status'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. In a context with many sibling tools for debugging and inspection, it should clarify the scope of 'health' (e.g., vs. 'get_connection_status') and expected output format to be more complete.
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 add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional semantic value is required or provided.
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 resource ('server and connection health status'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_connection_status' or 'get_capabilities', which might provide overlapping or related information.
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 'get_connection_status' or 'get_capabilities'. The description implies a general health check, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Highlight an element in the app UI
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID to highlight | |
| duration | No | Highlight duration in ms (default: 2000) |
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 highlighting but doesn't explain what happens during highlighting (e.g., visual effects, potential side effects like blocking UI, or if it's reversible). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 moderate complexity (involving UI interaction) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like visual feedback, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for 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 input schema fully documents the parameters (id and duration). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the purpose of highlighting or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the 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 'Highlight an element in the app UI' clearly states the action (highlight) and target (element in app UI), but it's vague about what 'highlight' means visually or functionally. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'clear_highlight' or 'scroll_to_element', which might have overlapping purposes in UI interaction.
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 should be used for debugging, user guidance, or other contexts, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an element ID from tools like 'get_element_by_id' or 'search_components'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get full inspection data for a component including props, state, hooks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID to inspect | |
| paths | No | Paths to hydrate for lazy loading |
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 retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., caching), rate limits, or error handling. The mention of 'lazy loading' in the schema hints at performance behavior, but the description doesn't elaborate on this or other traits like response format or latency.
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 ('Get full inspection data') and specifies key details ('including props, state, hooks'). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output information. With no annotations to fill gaps, the description should do more to explain how the tool behaves in practice, but it meets a basic threshold for a read-oriented tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'paths'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'paths' relate to 'lazy loading' or providing examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full inspection data for a component'), specifying what data is included ('props, state, hooks'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_element_by_id' or 'get_component_tree' by focusing on detailed component inspection rather than identification or structure. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_profiling_data' or 'get_element_source', which might also provide component-related data.
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 a connected component or specific state), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_element_by_id' (for basic info) or 'search_components' (for finding components). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Log an element to the browser/app console as $r
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions logging to the console but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what format '$r' outputs in, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe use.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative by clarifying '$r', but it earns high marks for brevity and directness.
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 parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the logging behavior, output format, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving gaps in understanding for effective use in the provided context of debugging and inspection 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'Element ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to or how it relates to logging. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 'Log an element to the browser/app console as $r' specifies the action (log) and target (element to console), but is vague about what '$r' represents and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_element_by_id' or 'highlight_element'. It states what it does but lacks specificity about the logging format or purpose.
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 'get_element_by_id' for retrieving elements or 'highlight_element' for visual debugging, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for logging to the console.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Override a context value
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| path | Yes | Path within context | |
| value | Yes | New value |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Override' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or how it interacts with other tools. 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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about what 'context value' means, how overrides affect the system, or what the expected outcome is, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by 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 already documents all three parameters (id, path, value) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Override a context value' states a clear verb ('override') and resource ('context value'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'context value' specifically refers to in this domain. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'override_hooks', 'override_props', or 'override_state', which all involve overriding different aspects of components.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, specific scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'override_hooks' or 'override_state', 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.
Override a hook value on a function component
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| hookIndex | Yes | Hook index | |
| path | Yes | Path within hook value | |
| value | Yes | New value |
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. 'Override' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to the original hook value, or any rate limits/constraints. For a mutation 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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the override, what the expected outcome is, whether there are side effects, or how this interacts with the component lifecycle. Given the complexity of hook manipulation and the lack of structured data, the description should provide more 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 already documents all four parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what 'hookIndex' means in practice, how 'path' works with hook values, or what types of 'value' are acceptable. 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 action ('Override') and target ('a hook value on a function component'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'override_context', 'override_props', or 'override_state', which all perform similar override operations on different aspects of components.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other override tools in the sibling list. The agent must 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.
Override a prop value on a component
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| path | Yes | Path to the prop | |
| value | Yes | New value |
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. 'Override' implies a mutation, but the description does not specify permissions required, whether the change is reversible, side effects, or error handling. 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., safety, reversibility) and does not explain what happens after overriding (e.g., success response, errors). The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient.
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 all parameters (id, path, value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are used for overriding props, which aligns with the schema but does not provide extra context like format examples or constraints.
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 ('override') and target ('a prop value on a component'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'override_context', 'override_hooks', or 'override_state', which all perform similar override operations on different aspects of components.
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected component), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'override_context' or 'override_state', 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.
Override a state value on a class component
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| path | Yes | Path to state key | |
| value | Yes | New value |
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 mentions 'Override', implying a mutation, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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 to understand at a glance.
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 inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, which are essential for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly and safely.
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 all parameters ('id', 'path', 'value') with basic descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, resulting in 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 action ('Override') and target ('a state value on a class component'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'override_props' or 'override_context', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over another.
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 'override_props' or 'override_context'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a connected component or specific permissions, which could lead to misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Rename a key in props/state/hooks/context
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| target | Yes | Target | |
| hookIndex | No | Hook index (if target is hooks) | |
| path | Yes | Path to the key | |
| oldKey | Yes | Old key name | |
| newKey | Yes | New key name |
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 ('Rename') but fails to explain critical aspects like whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, affects other elements, or has 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 (a mutation operation with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, or how it fits within the broader context of sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer.
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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 ('Rename') and the target ('a key in props/state/hooks/context'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_path' or 'override_props/state/hooks/context', which would require a more specific distinction to achieve a score of 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_path' for removal or 'override_*' tools for direct modification. The description lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where renaming is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Save content to system clipboard
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Content to save |
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 saves content to the clipboard, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it overwrites existing clipboard content, requires specific permissions, has platform limitations, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps 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 with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., overwrite behavior, permissions), error handling, and what happens after saving (e.g., confirmation). Given the context, it should provide more guidance 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'value' parameter clearly documented as 'Content to save'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 'Save content to system clipboard' clearly states the action (save) and target resource (system clipboard). It's specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'store_as_global' or 'log_to_console' which might have overlapping data-handling purposes.
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 clipboard permissions), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'store_as_global' for data persistence. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Scroll the app to show an element
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID |
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 lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether scrolling is smooth or instant), error handling (e.g., if the element doesn't exist), or performance implications. 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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, 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?
Given the tool's mutation nature (scrolling implies UI change), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what happens on failure or the visual effect, leaving gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior fully.
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 'id' documented as 'Element ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid ID or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the action ('Scroll') and target ('the app to show an element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'highlight_element' or 'inspect_element', which also involve element interaction but with different purposes.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an element ID from 'get_element_by_id'), exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among sibling tools that manipulate elements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for components by name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (component name) | |
| caseSensitive | No | Case sensitive (default: false) | |
| isRegex | No | Regex search (default: false) |
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 ('search') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.
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 purpose and appropriately sized for a simple search tool. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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 input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of components, their IDs, or other details), behavioral aspects like error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a search tool in a development/inspection context, 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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (query, caseSensitive, isRegex) with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the query is for component names, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 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 ('search') and resource ('components'), specifying the search is 'by name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_component_tree' or 'get_element_by_id' by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'get_components' if they existed.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after connecting), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_component_filters' or 'get_component_tree'. Usage is implied by the name 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.
Set component filters (hide certain components)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filters | Yes |
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 implies a mutation ('Set') but doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to existing filters. It also lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or side effects, which are critical for a tool that modifies state.
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 brief and front-loaded, stating the core action in a single sentence without unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by including key details like parameter explanations or usage context, which would improve its utility without sacrificing 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 mutation tool with 1 parameter (a nested array of objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer or guess during tool 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'filters' but doesn't describe their structure, types, or usage (e.g., what 'type', 'value', 'isEnabled', 'isRegex' mean). This leaves key semantics undocumented, failing to add meaningful value beyond the bare schema.
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 ('Set') and resource ('component filters'), and specifies the action's effect ('hide certain components'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_component_filters' or 'clear_highlight', which would be needed for 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, such as when to set filters versus getting them or clearing highlights. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set a native style property (React Native only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| property | Yes | Style property name | |
| value | Yes | New value |
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 mutation ('Set'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid property names), or side effects (e.g., UI updates). 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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a necessary constraint ('React Native only'), making it appropriately sized 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like expected behavior, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in a React Native debugging environment.
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 all three parameters (id, property, value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid property names or value formats. 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 action ('Set') and resource ('native style property'), and specifies the context ('React Native only'), which helps distinguish it from generic style-setting tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'override_props' or 'override_state', which might also modify UI 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected React Native app), exclusions (e.g., not for web components), or sibling tools like 'get_native_style' for reading styles or 'override_props' for broader property changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Enable/disable visual update highlighting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | Enable trace updates |
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/disable') but doesn't explain what 'visual update highlighting' entails, whether it's persistent, requires specific permissions, affects performance, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps 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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage, 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, which are critical for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without unintended 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'enabled' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default states or implications of toggling. Baseline 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 ('Enable/disable') and the resource ('visual update highlighting'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'clear_highlight' or 'highlight_element', but the specific focus on 'trace updates' provides adequate 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, context (e.g., during debugging or profiling), or sibling tools that might be related, such as 'start_profiling' or 'get_profiling_status'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start native element inspection mode (tap-to-select)
| 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. It mentions starting an inspection mode with tap-to-select, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it's interactive or blocking, what happens to existing inspections, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a 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 is front-loaded and wastes no words. It 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 the complexity of starting an inspection mode (likely interactive or state-changing), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure, it fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use, such as how to stop it or what the expected behavior entails.
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 no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters to document, aligning with the baseline for 0 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 action ('Start native element inspection mode') and the method ('tap-to-select'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspect_element' or 'stop_inspecting_native', which would be needed for a score of 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 like 'inspect_element' or 'stop_inspecting_native', nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start profiling React renders
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recordTimeline | No | Record timeline data | |
| recordChangeDescriptions | No | Record why components rendered |
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. 'Start profiling' implies an ongoing monitoring operation, but the description doesn't reveal what profiling entails (e.g., collecting performance metrics, tracking renders), whether it requires specific conditions (e.g., a connected React app), what resources it consumes, or how to stop it. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that initiates a monitoring process.
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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does.
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 starting a profiling operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'profiling' means in this context, what data will be collected, how to access results (presumably via 'get_profiling_data'), or any side effects. For a tool that initiates monitoring in a development/debugging environment, 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 both parameters clearly documented ('recordTimeline' and 'recordChangeDescriptions'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value. The parameters control what data gets recorded during profiling, which is adequately covered in the schema.
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 'Start profiling React renders' clearly states the action (start profiling) and target (React renders), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'stop_profiling' beyond the obvious start/stop distinction, nor does it explain what 'profiling' entails compared to other performance-related tools in the 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., needing a React app running), when profiling is appropriate (e.g., during performance debugging), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_profiling_data' or 'stop_profiling'. The agent 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.
Stop native element inspection mode
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selectNextElement | No | Select element under pointer (default: true) |
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 stops inspection mode but doesn't explain what that entails—e.g., whether it's a safe operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to ongoing inspections, or if there are side effects like clearing highlights. For a tool that likely changes system state, 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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in 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 complexity (a tool that likely stops an active mode), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'stopping' entails, potential errors if not in inspection mode, or return values. For a state-changing tool in a development/debugging context, more context is needed to ensure safe and 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('selectNextElement') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value here.
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 ('Stop') and the target ('native element inspection mode'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from potential alternatives like 'disconnect' or 'stop_profiling', which are sibling tools that might also end certain modes or connections. The purpose is clear but lacks 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., that inspection mode must be active), exclusions, or related tools like 'start_inspecting_native' or 'get_inspecting_native_status'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to apply it correctly in workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Stop profiling and get data
| 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. It implies a mutation (stopping profiling) and data retrieval, but doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, what happens to ongoing profiling, or the format/scope of the returned data. 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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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 implied by 'profiling' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what profiling entails, what data is returned, or behavioral aspects like side effects, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline 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 'Stop profiling and get data' states the action (stop profiling) and outcome (get data), but it's vague about what profiling refers to and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_profiling_data' or 'get_profiling_status'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the resource or 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that profiling must be started first), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'start_profiling' or 'get_profiling_data', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Store a value as a global variable for console access
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| path | Yes | Path to the value | |
| globalName | Yes | Global variable name |
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 details. It states the tool stores a value globally but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it overwrites existing variables, requires specific permissions, has side effects on the console, or how long the variable persists. 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 zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and involves mutation (storing values), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for safe and effective use, making it insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with potential side effects.
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 (id, path, globalName). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are used to store a value, matching the baseline score 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 action ('Store a value') and purpose ('for console access'), specifying it creates a global variable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'save_to_clipboard' or 'log_to_console' by focusing on variable storage, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'override_context' that might involve similar concepts.
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 element ID from 'get_element_by_id'), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'override_context' for similar purposes, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Toggle error boundary state for testing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| isErrored | Yes | Force error state |
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 'toggle error boundary state for testing'. It lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it affects UI or logs), rate limits, or what 'toggling' entails beyond the parameters. This is inadequate 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 no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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 with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what 'toggling' does behaviorally, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters 'id' and 'isErrored' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the tool toggles based on these inputs, aligning with 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 ('toggle') and resource ('error boundary state'), and specifies the context ('for testing'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_errors_and_warnings' or 'get_errors_and_warnings', but the action is specific enough to understand its distinct function.
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 minimal guidance with 'for testing', implying it's used in test scenarios, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'clear_errors_and_warnings'), or prerequisites. This leaves usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Toggle suspense state for testing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| isSuspended | Yes | Force suspended state |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'toggle' and 'for testing', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's under-specified, lacking detail that could enhance clarity, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the concise structure.
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 'toggle'), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use, such as return values, error conditions, or testing-specific behaviors, leaving critical 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'id' and 'isSuspended'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. With high schema coverage, the 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 'Toggle suspense state for testing' states a verb ('toggle') and resource ('suspense state'), but it's vague about what exactly is being toggled (e.g., a UI component, a process) and lacks specificity compared to siblings like 'toggle_error'. It distinguishes itself from other tools by mentioning 'suspense', but the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous.
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 'for testing', which implies a context, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it offers minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get source location for a specific attribute path
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID | |
| path | Yes | Path to attribute |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves source location but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects such as whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. This is inadequate for a tool with no 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'source location' entails (e.g., file path, line number), the tool's behavior, or error conditions. For a tool in a context with many siblings and no structured output, more detail 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 mentions 'attribute path' and 'source location', which aligns with the 'path' and 'id' parameters in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents these parameters well, so the description adds minimal value beyond restating the purpose. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate here.
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 ('Get') and target ('source location for a specific attribute path'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_element_source' or 'view_source', which appear related to source retrieval, 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 sibling tools like 'get_element_source' and 'view_source' present, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Open element source in IDE (if supported)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Open element source in IDE' implying an external action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this triggers an IDE launch, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The 'if supported' hint adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.
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 includes a brief conditional, making it appropriately 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves external IDE interaction, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open' entails, what happens on success/failure, or the return values, leaving significant gaps for agent 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'id' documented as 'Element ID'. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 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 'Open element source in IDE (if supported)' states the action (open source) and resource (element), but is vague about what 'element source' means and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_element_source' or 'view_attribute_source'. It provides a basic purpose 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?
The description includes no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'if supported' as a conditional, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'get_element_source', 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.
The tools cover distinct operations like connection management, inspection, and overrides, but there is some overlap in purpose. For example, 'get_element_by_id' and 'inspect_element' both retrieve element info, and 'get_profiling_data' vs 'stop_profiling' could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but the high count increases ambiguity.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'capture_screenshot', 'clear_errors_and_warnings'), with consistent snake_case throughout. Minor deviations exist, such as 'log_to_console' using 'to' instead of a direct verb, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
With 45 tools, the count is excessive for a React DevTools server, making it heavy and potentially overwhelming. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated or omitted without losing functionality, indicating poor scoping.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for React DevTools operations, including connection management, component inspection, profiling, overrides, and debugging features. There are no obvious gaps; it supports full CRUD-like actions and lifecycle management for the domain.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Live React design-system APIs, patterns, and code validation so AI agents build real UI, not slop.
Live browser debugging for AI assistants — DOM, console, network via MCP.
Data + AI observability — monitor and troubleshoot production-grade agents and the context they use.
Give your agent live data from Twitter, Reddit, the web and GitHub. No API keys, no scraping stack.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/skylarbarrera/react-devtools-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
