Look up a design token by dot-path to retrieve its value and class mapping. Use it when generating code that needs exact token values or class names.
Get a design token by dot-path. Returns the token object with its value and class mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Dot-separated path to the token (e.g. "color.primary.600", "spacing.4", "radius.lg", "typography.fontSize.base") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape ('token object with its value and class mapping'), which is genuine context. However, it says nothing about what happens on an invalid path, whether the lookup is exact-match or prefix-tolerant, or any read-only guarantee beyond the implicit verb.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key, followed by the return value. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies both the lookup semantics and a summary of the returned object, which is what an agent needs to invoke it. Only error/miss behavior is left unaddressed, 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%, so the schema already documents 'path' with illustrative dot-path examples. The description's mention of dot-path adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('get a design token') plus the lookup mechanism ('by dot-path'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_component or check_rule. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named sibling, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.
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 the use case (resolving a single token by path) but never states when to reach for this tool over search or get_rules. Usage is inferable from the resource name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.