Recipe to design the UI from Systems (user request only): steps + batch id — confirm canvas aspect, then screens + PLACED elements + edges in one batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / project_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Project id (from list_projects) to act on; omit = the connector URL's project."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation by describing the creation/placement of screens, elements, and edges, which are write operations. Additionally, it provides no details about side effects, permissions, or return behavior. This is a serious inconsistency.
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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, but the 'steps + batch id' phrasing is cryptic. It is not overly verbose and earns a 4 for efficiency, though it could be clearer.
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?
The tool appears to be a complex batch orchestration, yet the description omits critical information such as how the batch id works, what the steps entail, what output to expect, and how project_id factors in. Without an output schema and with the annotation contradiction, the description is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 description does not explain the project_id parameter at all, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The mention of 'batch id' is ambiguous and may not correspond to project_id. The agent is left without meaningful parameter semantics.
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 tool is a 'Recipe to design the UI from Systems' and describes a batch process of confirming canvas aspect and creating screens, placed elements, and edges. This distinctively separates it from individual proposal tools like propose_screen or propose_element. The 'user request only' qualifier adds scope.
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 when a user requests a batch UI design from systems, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It mentions 'batch' and 'user request only' but lacks exclusionary guidance; the contrast with sibling proposal tools is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.
With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.
The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.