Find design tokens and components by keyword across names, values, class strings, and descriptions, returning up to 20 matches with a truncation flag.
Search across tokens and components by keyword. Matches against names, values, class strings, and descriptions. Returns up to 20 results (truncated flag when more matched).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search keyword (e.g. "card", "primary", "shadow") |
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 behavioral burden and does disclose two substantive traits: a hard cap of 20 results and a truncation flag when more matched. It stops short of explaining result ordering/relevance or that there is no pagination parameter to retrieve results beyond the cap.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then matching scope, then result behavior. Every sentence adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema.
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, so the description must cover behavior itself; it does so for result count and truncation. Gaps remain around relevance ordering and whether results are typed/labeled, and there is no hint of how to get past the 20-result cap.
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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'query' fully. The description adds what the keyword is matched against, which helps query construction, but no syntax, operators, or format rules beyond the schema's examples.
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 ('Search across tokens and components by keyword') and enumerates the fields matched against (names, values, class strings, descriptions). This implicitly separates it from the get_* siblings, which fetch by identity, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 implied: keyword search is what you reach for when you don't have an exact token/component name. The description never states when to prefer it over get_token or get_component, nor any exclusions, so the agent must infer the routing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.