get_setupPrepare a project for Ballmac UI by running shadcn init, adding the registry entry, and optionally setting a theme, including required setup steps.
How to prepare a project for Ballmac UI (shadcn init, registry entry, optional theme) and its requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageManager | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes | ||
| requirements | Yes | ||
| installLocation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds topic scope (init, registry, theme, requirements) but discloses nothing about freshness, source, or whether output is static docs. Adequate but not rich.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the topic, with no filler. The parenthetical list is slightly compressed but every element earns its place by describing scope.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a setup-guidance tool with an undocumented parameter and no usage routing, the description leaves the agent guessing about when this belongs in the workflow.
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 0% for the single packageManager parameter, and the description never mentions it. The parenthetical content list does not hint that setup instructions vary by package manager, so the meaning of this enum parameter is left entirely to the raw enum values.
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 the resource (project setup for Ballmac UI) and enumerates the content it covers (shadcn init, registry entry, optional theme, requirements), so an agent can tell it apart from get_install_command or get_examples. It is clear but does not explicitly say it returns setup/preparation instructions, leaning on the name and title.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this before get_install_command or instead of it, even though those siblings clearly overlap in the setup workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.