Skip to main content
Glama
vuluu2k

sbuilder-mcp

by vuluu2k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sb_set

Set style, config, or specials keys on a single node or multiple nodes, with support for breakpoints, states, and namespaces to apply design changes across the site.

Instructions

Write style, config or specials keys on one node, or on many through edits (one save, one live frame). Per BREAKPOINT by default; base:true writes the fallback layer, right for a value that should not vary.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
baseNo
keysNo
editsNo
stateNoAn interaction state — "hover", or "stuck" for how a pinned element looks once it is stuck (needs a sticky/fixed self-or-ancestor; a descendant styles itself through the host).
unsetNoKeys to REMOVE from the same slot — the only way to undo a write. Setting null is not the same: null is a stored value, so the override still counts as present.
dry_runNo
namespaceNo
breakpointNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.12.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / edits / items / properties / unset
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"An interaction state, e.g. \"hover\""New value: +"An interaction state — \"hover\", or \"stuck\" for how a pinned element looks once it is stuck (needs a sticky/fixed self-or-ancestor; a descendant styles itself through the host)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / unset
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Keys to REMOVE from the same slot — the only way to undo a write. Setting null is not the same: null is a stored value, so the override still counts as present.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that writes are per breakpoint by default, that base:true targets the fallback layer, and that edits batch into one save/frame. However, it does not explain what happens when writing to an existing key (overwrite vs merge), nor does it mention the unset mechanism for removing keys (which is described in the schema but not the tool description). With minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description carries the burden and only partially covers behavioral traits.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action. It is concise and avoids fluff, but uses domain jargon ('live frame', 'fallback layer') that may require additional context. It is appropriately sized and well-structured, though a bit cryptic for an external user.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It covers breakpoint, base, and edits, but omits the 'id', 'keys' shape, 'dry_run', and the practical use of 'unset' (only mentioned in schema). This leaves the tool underspecified for an agent to call correctly without further inference or external knowledge.

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 only 22% (only 'state' and 'unset' have descriptions). The tool description adds meaning to several parameters: it explains the namespaces (style, config, specials), the base flag, the breakpoint behavior, and the edits batch. However, it does not explain the shape of the 'keys' object, the 'id' parameter, 'dry_run', or how 'unset' works (though unset has a schema description). It partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves key parameters undocumented.

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?

The description clearly states the action (write) and the resource (style, config, or specials keys on a node). It explicitly mentions the ability to write to one node or many via edits, and the phrase 'one save, one live frame' conveys a batching behavior that distinguishes it from per-node mutation tools. Though it does not name sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides usage context for breakpoint and base:true ('Per BREAKPOINT by default; base:true writes the fallback layer'), explaining when to use base. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like sb_add or sb_remove, nor does it list exclusions. It implies usage but lacks direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance.

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