shadcn-registry-mcp

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

The annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it automatically resolves and installs dependencies, and it exposes a dry-run mode that avoids making changes. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and object, and every sentence earns its place: install behavior, dependency handling, and dry-run usage. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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 mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, dependency resolution, and safe preview option. It could be slightly more explicit that the caller must provide at least one of name, names, or group, since none of those parameters is marked required in the schema.

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 each parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds only general context ('one or more', dryRun preview purpose) rather than meaningfully enriching the parameter semantics beyond the structured definitions.

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 ('Install'), names the exact resource ('shadcn/ui components'), and scopes it to the current project. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_components, remove_component, and get_component_info, and it adds the important nuance that dependencies are resolved automatically.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use the tool: to install shadcn/ui components into the current project. It also gives explicit guidance for the dryRun=true preview path. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly saying when not to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating exactly which configuration aspects are inspected while avoiding any implication of mutation. It does not disclose failure modes or behavior on unrecognized projects, but those are minor given the read-only, idempotent nature.

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, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential purpose first and then lists the specific configuration categories. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool 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 zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the operation, the target, and the expected output categories. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit list of configuration aspects, though it does not describe the result format or error behavior if no project configuration is detectable.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies here because the description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the empty input schema is already fully descriptive.

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 the specific verb 'Detect' with a clear resource ('current project configuration') and enumerates the concrete aspects it covers: framework, package manager, component paths, and shadcn setup. This makes the tool clearly distinct from the sibling component-focused tools like list_components, search_components, and get_component_info.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear enough that an agent could infer when to call it, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It does not name sibling tools or suggest a workflow sequence like 'run before component operations.'

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no side effects need restating. The description adds useful behavioral context about scope: it inspects the current project to report installed status, and it returns dependencies/files rather than just a list. This goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause (dependencies, files, installed status) adds information. No filler.

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?

With one required string parameter, rich examples in the schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description explains the central output facets. It doesn't define the return shape or behavior for unknown component names, but this is a minor gap for such a simple lookup tool.

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 parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning, 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 ('Get'), a resource ('shadcn/ui component'), and the exact facets returned (dependencies, files, installed status). This distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools and the mutating add/remove tools.

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 when to use the tool – when detailed per-component info like dependencies or install state is needed – but it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions. An agent must infer the boundary against list_components/search_components/list_installed from the verb and facets alone.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the official-registry scope but does not disclose other behavioral details such as return shape or pagination; the lower bar from annotations makes this adequate.

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 communicates the exact resource and scope with no filler. Every word 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?

For a simple list operation with one optional, fully documented parameter and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the exact return shape, but 'list' makes the general output type inferable.

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 sole optional category parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: it lists all available components from the official registry. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that search, install, remove, or inspect components.

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 phrase 'all available ... from the official registry' gives clear scope and implies this is the right choice for browsing the full remote component catalog. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_installed or search_components, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description is fully consistent with them. It adds useful context by specifying the scope ('all available') and the practical use case ('for bulk installation'), so an agent understands this is a safe, side-effect-free lookup.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes just enough context with examples. Every part earns its place; nothing is redundant or distracting.

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 simple zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description is sufficient: it states what is returned and gives representative values. It does not describe return format, but the low complexity and strong annotations make that 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are largely irrelevant. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description provides no misleading parameter information.

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 names a specific action ('List') and resource ('all available component groups'), and clarifies the purpose with concrete examples ('form', 'overlay', 'navigation'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_components and search_components because it targets groups rather than individual components.

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 clear context: this tool is for retrieving available component groups for bulk installation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, non-mutating nature is established. The description adds value by specifying that the result reflects the current project installation state, which is a meaningful behavioral scope beyond the structured annotations.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action ('List') and clearly scopes the resource without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical information is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description sufficiently covers invocation needs.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('shadcn/ui components that are currently installed in the project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_components, which presumably lists all components regardless of installation state.

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 phrase 'currently installed in the project' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, distinguishing it from the broader list_components or search_components siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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?

The annotation already marks the tool as destructive, but the description adds useful detail by specifying that deletion of component files is what happens. This goes beyond the raw annotation and helps the agent understand the concrete effect, while not contradicting the destructive hint.

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 with no filler. Every word adds clarity about scope, mechanism, and target resource.

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 one-parameter destructive removal tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential action and consequence. It does not spell out failure behavior or dependency cleanup, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single 'names' parameter, including an example format. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 a specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('installed shadcn/ui components'), and the mechanism ('deleting their files'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_component, list_components, and get_component_info.

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 usage: use it to remove already-installed components rather than to list, search, or add them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or any exclusions, such as checking list_installed first or handling dependencies.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only, side-effect-free behavior is covered. The description doesn't add additional behavioral context such as result format, fuzzy matching, pagination, or what 'search' returns, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states what the tool does and the input scope. There is no redundant filler, and every word contributes meaning.

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 minimal complexity (one required string parameter), the rich schema coverage, and the safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what the search returns, but the name and description make the tool's purpose clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 query parameter already has a descriptive comment: 'Search query (component name, keyword, or description)'. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond rephrasing what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('shadcn/ui components'), and a precise scope ('by name or description'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_components and get_component_info, since 'search' implies query-based retrieval rather than listing or detail lookup.

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 that the tool is appropriate when an agent needs to find a component using a name, keyword, or description query. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over list_components or get_component_info, and it provides no exclusion criteria or alternative guidance.

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