Adapts a chosen Inspo reference JSX to a specified Aura component, returning source calls plus an adapt plan for token swaps, CSS scoping, and file changes.
Adapt one Inspo reference JSX onto one Aura component (pure). evidence {type, id} + aura_component {id|slug}. Returns inspo.get_reference_jsx + aura_get_component calls plus scoped adapt_plan (token swaps, css scope, files).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| evidence | Yes | ||
| aura_component | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose return content ('inspo.get_reference_jsx + aura_get_component calls plus scoped adapt_plan') and the '(pure)' marker hints at a non-mutating planning operation, but it never states side effects, permissions, or whether anything is written.
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?
Dense, front-loaded, telegraphic statements with no filler; purpose leads, then params, then return shape. It borders on cryptic but every clause carries 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?
No output schema and no annotations, with two nested-object params, so the description has a heavy load. It covers the return surface and rough param structure adequately, but leaves the nested objects' inner shape and any safety/permission context unspecified.
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 coverage is 0% and both params are bare nested objects, so the description must compensate. It does partially by specifying 'evidence {type, id}' and 'aura_component {id|slug}', which is genuinely more than the schema offers, though the meaning of 'type' and the id-vs-slug choice remains unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb (Adapt) and resource (one Inspo reference JSX onto one Aura component), with the parenthetical '(pure)' scoping it. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent Inspo siblings like aura_inspo_compare or aura_inspo_system, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. 'Adapt one reference onto one component' implies a single-pair scope, but nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to aura_inspo_compare or the other inspo tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.