Starwind UI MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'generates validated... commands' but does not clarify whether the tool only outputs commands or also executes them. Parameters like 'init' and 'overwrite' suggest potential side effects, yet the description omits any discussion of safety, authentication, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and an output schema. While the description covers the high-level purpose, it lacks details on parameter relationships, the fact that 'components' can be 'all', and whether the tool executes commands or just generates them. The output schema exists, so return values are not missing, but the behavioral and contextual gaps reduce completeness.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not improve understanding of the two undocumented parameters (cwd, packageManager).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('validated Starwind UI v3 install commands') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like starwind_init (initialization) and starwind_search (search) by focusing on component installation with optional framework targeting.

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 implies use for adding components after setup, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus starwind_init or starwind_migrate. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The word 'Fetches' implies a safe, read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it produces no side effects, requires authentication, or has any rate limits. This is adequate but lacks the explicitness needed for agents to confidently assess risk.

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 that leads with the verb 'Fetches' and immediately conveys the resource. It packs multiple categories without wasted words. While slightly long due to enumeration, every clause adds relevant scope. No unnecessary repetition.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be detailed) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the tool's scope adequately. However, it omits guidance on how the 'full' parameter differs from a non-full request, when to use different surfaces, and how to combine parameters effectively. The context is sufficient for basic use but lacks depth for complex queries.

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 low (33%: only the 'full' parameter has a description). The description adds contextual meaning by enumerating categories that align with the 'surface' enum values, helping an agent understand what each surface likely refers to. However, 'topic' remains entirely undefined, and the relationship between 'topic' and 'surface' is not clarified. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves ambiguity.

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 ('Fetches'), the resource ('current Starwind UI v3 documentation'), and the scope across multiple categories (styled components, primitives, Runtime, migration, framework guides). This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like starwind_init, starwind_add, starwind_search, or starwind_migrate, which serve 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool starwind_search, or when to avoid it. It lists what the tool fetches but does not explain prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or the relationship between the surface enum values and the listed categories. An agent must guess the intended usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a command (not directly modifying anything), mentions auto-detection behavior, and notes Pro is opt-in targeting Astro. This is strong coverage of behavioral effects, missing only potential side effects or return format.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with the core action, then specifics on auto-detection and Pro. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists (not shown but flagged as present), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers generation scope, framework detection, and Pro behavior. Completeness is high; minor gap could be a note that this does not install dependencies or modify files directly.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds context that 'pro' is opt-in and targets Astro, and that 'framework' override is optional. The 'packageManager' parameter lacks any description enrichment, but the overall additive value is moderate.

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 generates a Starwind UI v3 initialization command for existing Astro or React projects. This specific verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'starwind_add', 'starwind_search', 'starwind_docs', and 'starwind_migrate'.

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 mentions CLI auto-detects the framework unless overridden, and that Pro authorization is opt-in targeting Astro. This provides clear context for when to override vs. not, though it does not explicitly state when this tool is preferred over siblings or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool has interactive and non-interactive modes, but omits critical details: what 'safe' means, whether it actually executes migration or just prints a command, what happens during overwrite (backup? destructive?), and any permission or side-effect notifications. Given the complexity of migration, 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy. The structure efficiently communicates the core action and key behavioral choice.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description leaves major ambiguities: does the tool execute migration or just output a command? How does the packageManager parameter affect behavior? What is the interactive workflow? The description is too sparse for an agent to reliably invoke the tool, especially given the absence of annotations to provide safety cues.

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 67% (cwd and yes have descriptions, packageManager does not). The main description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. For packageManager, there is no description in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent unaware of its role. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates a migration command for a specific context ('Starwind UI v3 migration command for a legacy Astro project'). The verb 'generates' and resource 'migration command' are precise. The interactive vs. non-interactive nuance further clarifies behavior. This easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like starwind_init or starwind_add.

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 hints at usage context (legacy Astro projects) and default behavior (interactive), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention prerequisites or conditions. For example, it is unclear if starwind_migrate should be used over starwind_init for an existing project. The description provides some context but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool searches but does not confirm it's read-only, describe side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action and scope. It could be slightly improved by structuring with lists or brief usage notes, but it is not verbose.

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 (8 parameters, many without descriptions), the description is insufficient. It does not mention filtering dimensions like surface, category, plan, or how the output is structured, despite the output schema existing. The agent would lack context to leverage all features.

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 low at 38% (3 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's sparse descriptions. It does not explain the role of query, category, offset, plan, or framework in search behavior.

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 searches across specific resources (Starwind UI v3 styled components, Primitive adapters, Starwind Pro blocks) with framework-aware results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (init, add, docs, migrate) which are not search 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The context is purely implicit from the tool name and siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.