Checks JSX/TSX component names, props, and enum values against Storybook argTypes, reporting invalid usage with suggestions.
Call AFTER writing JSX/TSX that uses design-system components: checks component names, props, and enum values against Storybook argTypes and reports invalid usage with suggestions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: it discloses the validation source of truth (Storybook argTypes) and the response behavior (reports invalid usage with suggestions), which implies a non-mutating check. It does not explicitly state that nothing is modified or that only the supplied snippet is analyzed, leaving a small gap.
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 sentence with the timing constraint front-loaded and no filler; every clause adds information (when to call, what is checked, what is returned).
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 validator with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and what the output contains (invalid usage plus suggestions). It could still clarify scope (snippet-only) and side-effect-free behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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?
One parameter ('code') with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only gives type and length bounds. The description implies the input is the JSX/TSX to be validated, which partially compensates, but does not confirm format expectations (snippet vs. whole file) or size limits.
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 (validates/checks) and resource (JSX/TSX usage of design-system components), plus the exact validation dimensions (component names, props, enum values) and the reference source (Storybook argTypes). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_components, get_component, or preview_story.
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?
Explicitly states the trigger condition – 'Call AFTER writing JSX/TSX that uses design-system components' – which is unusually clear timing guidance. It does not name a specific alternative or exclusion, so it stops 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.