Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
uxui-principles

uxui-principles

by uxuiprinciples
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Check a screen against the required-state rules

check_requirements
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a designed screen against eight UX experience requirements and get pass, fail or not_applicable per rule with cited principles, so you can fix every gap before shipping.

Instructions

Check a screen you built or designed against eight experience requirements: confirmation before consequential actions, error state, empty state, loading state, undo or edit, sources on AI output, recovery after an AI error, consent before automation. Describe the screen as data (flow, components, actions with flags, states implemented) and get pass, fail or not_applicable per rule, each with the principle it comes from and its citations, plus a markdown summary. Call it after generating or changing a screen and fix every fail. Pro mode only (UXUI_API_KEY set); without a key use generate_checklist for the unevaluated checklist.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_requirements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowNoThe flow the screen belongs to. One of: "onboarding", "forms", "pricing", "dashboard", "empty-states", "checkout", "settings", "navigation", "search", "authentication", "notifications", "data-tables". Other values are accepted and match no flow rule.
localeNoLanguage of the verdicts and the summary: "en" or "es". Defaults to "en".en
actionsNoThe actions the screen offers, with their flags.
componentsNoWhat is on the screen, one item per component, in plain words (e.g., "search input", "results table", "AI summary panel"). Words such as form, table, list, search, chart, AI, chat or summary decide which rules apply.
states_implementedNoThe states the implementation has: loading, empty, error, success, confirmation, undo, edit, sources, recovery, consent. Only list what is built.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: an API-key gating requirement and the shape of the result (pass/fail/not_applicable per rule with principle and citations, plus a markdown summary). It does not mention cost or latency, but for a read-only checker the disclosed behavior is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, then the rule list, then usage and the mode constraint; each sentence carries information. The enumeration of eight requirements is long but necessary for scoping the evaluation, so it earns its space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (per-rule verdicts plus principle and citations, plus a markdown summary). Combined with the mode prerequisite and the fix-the-fails workflow, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 every parameter including the flow enum, the action flags and the states enum. The description's recap ("flow, components, actions with flags, states implemented") restates rather than extends the schema, though it does correctly convey that component wording drives rule applicability.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and object ("Check a screen you built or designed against eight experience requirements") and enumerates exactly which eight rules are evaluated. It is immediately distinguishable from generate_checklist, which is named as the unevaluated alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to call ("after generating or changing a screen and fix every fail"), adds a prerequisite ("Pro mode only (UXUI_API_KEY set)"), and names the fallback tool for the missing-key case. No inference is needed on the when/when-not decision.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools