get_design_tokensRetrieve semantic design tokens for colors, typography, spacing, radius, shadows, or animations, with CSS variables, usage guidance, and contrast pairs for consistent UI styling.
Expose semantic colours, typography, spacing, radius, shadows and animation tokens, with CSS variables, guidance and contrast pairs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token_type | No | Token family to return. Defaults to all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the payload contains — CSS variables, guidance, and contrast pairs — which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing size or structure of the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the token families with zero preamble. The enumeration is slightly list-like but every item maps to a real return category, so nothing is wasted.
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?
This is a simple, parameter-light read tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations and whose only input is fully covered by the schema. The description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned artifacts (CSS variables, guidance, contrast pairs). Only the shape and size of the response remain unspecified, which is a minor gap.
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% and the single parameter has an enumerated list, so the schema fully documents the token_type selector. The description restates the same token families as its content list but adds no filtering syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.
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 gives a clear verb ('Expose') and a concrete resource ('semantic colours, typography, spacing, radius, shadows and animation tokens'), so the agent immediately knows what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, though the sibling names (list_components, get_component_details, etc.) are component-oriented rather than token-oriented, making the distinction largely inferable.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs design token values. There is no explicit 'use this when…', no statement of prerequisites, and no routing away from alternatives. The default-to-all behavior is only stated in the schema, not in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.