Webpixels MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the assembly function but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), output format (HTML structure), or side effects (e.g., asset inclusion defaults). This is inadequate for a mutation-like tool.

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 front-loads the purpose and key parameter usage. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (assembling HTML pages with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output (HTML structure), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like default values for 'includeAssets', leaving significant gaps for agent usage.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'component IDs/slugs in the order they should appear', which aligns with the schema's 'components' description. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'assemble' and the resource 'multiple components into a complete HTML page', specifying the action and outcome. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_component' (retrieval) or 'search_components' (searching) by focusing on composition and ordering.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions component IDs/slugs but does not clarify prerequisites (e.g., components must exist) or compare to other tools like 'get_component_dependencies' for related tasks, leaving usage context implicit.

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