Skip to main content
Glama
zygiu-zygis

basecoat-ui

by zygiu-zygis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

validate_composition

Read-onlyIdempotent

Statically check HTML/Astro source for Basecoat migration errors, semantic rhythm, FSM bindings, missing scripts, nested cards, spacing, and hierarchy issues without rendering dynamic code.

Instructions

Statically check HTML/Astro source for Basecoat migration errors, semantic rhythm, FSM bindings, missing scripts, nested cards, spacing and hierarchy issues. Pass code or alias html and optionally a semanticProfile and densityProfile. Does not render or evaluate dynamic code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNo
htmlNo
densityProfileNo
semanticProfileNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / maxLength
      Previous value: -65536New value: +262144
    • addedInput schema / properties / densityProfile
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "comfortable",
+    "compact"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / html / maxLength
      Previous value: -65536New value: +262144
    • addedInput schema / properties / semanticProfile
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / html
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 65536,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "code"
-]
  3. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, deterministic read. The description adds the static-only constraint and enumerates check categories, but doesn't mention what a successful/failed check returns (no output schema) or any limits on code size beyond what the schema maxLength provides.

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?

One dense sentence enumerating checks and one sentence covering inputs plus the non-rendering caveat. Front-loaded with the core action; no filler. Slightly list-heavy but every clause carries information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given a 4-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description tells what it checks and the input names, and clarifies no dynamic evaluation. It still leaves the parameter semantics (profiles, code vs html) and the nature of the result incomplete, so it's minimally adequate but has gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions passing 'code' or alias 'html' and optionally semanticProfile and densityProfile, but gives no meaning for the enum values (comfortable/compact), no format for semanticProfile (max 64 chars), and no explanation of when to use code vs html. The alias relationship is noted but semantics beyond names are absent.

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?

Specific verb (statically check) and resource (HTML/Astro source) with clear scope: Basecoat migration errors, semantic rhythm, FSM bindings, missing scripts, nested cards, spacing/hierarchy. Distinguishes from sibling validate_design (which covers design validation) by focusing on static composition/lint checks.

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?

States it's a static check and explicitly says 'Does not render or evaluate dynamic code,' which is a useful boundary. However, it doesn't explain when to use this versus validate_design or apply_design_patch, nor any prerequisites or typical workflow positions.

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