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 tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'metadata' includes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic retrieval.

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 ('Get the HTML code and metadata') and specifies the key detail (by ID or slug). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of HTML and metadata) or potential errors, which could hinder effective use despite the simple schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' well-documented in the schema as accepting UUIDs or slugs. The description adds minimal value by reiterating this in parentheses, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('HTML code and metadata for a specific component'), specifying it retrieves both code and metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_components' by focusing on a single component, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_component_dependencies' which might share similar retrieval aspects.

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 implies usage by specifying retrieval by 'ID (UUID) or slug', which suggests when to use this tool (for known identifiers) versus alternatives like 'search_components' (for broader queries). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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