Slate is a shadcn-inspired ui kit for Laravel
Fetch markdown documentation for a Slate component (e.g. button, dialog, input).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component slug, e.g. button, alert-dialog, dark-mode-toggle |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states the return type (markdown documentation) and the target resource (Slate component), which is sufficient for a read-only fetch. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.
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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place by conveying the action, target, and format. No fluff or irrelevant details.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies the input (component name) and output (markdown documentation) sufficiently. It might be slightly improved by noting that documentation is specific to Slate components, but this is a minor omission given the tool name and sibling context.
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% for the 'name' parameter, as the schema already provides a detailed description and examples. The tool description adds only generic examples ('button, dialog, input') that are slightly different from the schema's examples ('alert-dialog', 'dark-mode-toggle') but do not add substantial new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly defines the resource ('markdown documentation for a Slate component'), with concrete examples ('button, dialog, input'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_component_source (source code) and get_docs_page (generic docs page) by specifying 'component' docs in markdown format.
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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: whenever markdown documentation for a specific Slate component is needed. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would be needed for a 5. Sibling tools are not named, but the resource specificity helps avoid confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch the primary Blade source for a Slate component from the 3.x GitHub branch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component slug, e.g. button, dialog, toaster |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states a fetch action and the branch, but does not disclose expected output format, potential errors, authentication requirements, or the fact that it may return only 'primary' source not all variants. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the verb itself.
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 concise sentence that is immediately informative and free of filler. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and its purpose is straightforward. The description provides sufficient context (Slate component, 3.x branch) to invoke correctly. A small gap is not explaining 'primary Blade source', but overall it is adequate for the 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 single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema ('Component slug, e.g. button, dialog, toaster'). The description does not add further parameter detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Fetch'), the resource ('primary Blade source for a Slate component'), and a specific context ('from the 3.x GitHub branch'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_component_docs by explicitly focusing on source code rather than documentation.
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 mentioning 'source', which differentiates it from docs-related siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Guidance is only implied via the resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a docs markdown page by path (e.g. getting-started/installation, livewire, ai).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Docs path without leading docs/, e.g. getting-started/installation or design-tokens |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Fetch' implying a read-only operation, but provides no additional details such as output format, error handling, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not enriched.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes illustrative examples. Every part is relevant with no filler.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the path format and provides examples. It is complete enough for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage, though it could benefit from mentioning the markdown return format explicitly.
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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions and examples for the 'path' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds a few extra examples but does not offer substantial new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 fetches a docs markdown page by path, with specific examples (getting-started/installation, livewire, ai). The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'docs markdown page' are unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_component_docs, which focus on component-specific docs, by emphasizing general docs pages.
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 for general docs pages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or exclude cases. No alternatives are mentioned, so while context hints at differentiation, explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch https://slate.electrik.dev/llms.txt — the curated AI index for Slate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It says 'Fetch' which indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, caching behavior, error responses, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It states the action and the target clearly without unnecessary words.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys what it does. It mentions the content type ('AI index') which adds context, though it does not specify the return format explicitly, but that is not required when no output schema exists.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no information to cover. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics, though it also adds no extra detail.
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 fetches a specific URL (llms.txt) for Slate, which is a precise action and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle component docs or list operations.
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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies it is for retrieving the AI index, but lacks direct guidance on context or comparison with get_docs_page or list_components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List electrik/slate-blocks (curated Blade sections on the docs gallery).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No BBE behaviors are disclosed. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does indicate a read-only listing operation and the 'curated' qualifier implies a preselected set, but it omits details like return format, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource and adds the key clarification in a parenthetical. It contains no verbosity, no repetition, and no unnecessary details.
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?
For a parameterless simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete enough to understand what it does and where it fits: it returns the curated list of electrik/slate-blocks. Missing return-value structure is a minor gap, not a blocker.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The empty schema is fully covered, and the description's mention of resource-specific 'electrik/slate-blocks' adds contextual meaning to the tool's role even though it doesn't address parameters.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('electrik/slate-blocks'), and clarifies what these are with 'curated Blade sections on the docs gallery'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from list siblings like list_components and from the more granular get_* tools.
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?
Usage is implied by the noun and verb: when you want to list blocks, use this tool. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_components or the get_* siblings. The intended context is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List shipped Electrik Slate Blade components with docs URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. However, a listing operation is implicitly safe, but the lack of any side-effect or permission mention leaves some ambiguity.
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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool does. It could potentially mention whether the list is ordered or filtered, but that is not critical for basic 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?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (no undefined fields). Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when there is no parameter information to add, and the description does not need to elaborate further.
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 (List) and the resource (shipped Slate Blade components) with the output (docs URLs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component_docs or get_component_source, which focus on individual components, while this lists all components.
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 needing an overview of all components with their documentation URLs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that the purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_component_docsget_component_sourceget_docs_pageget_llms_indexlist_blockslist_componentsClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct: get_component_docs, get_component_source, get_docs_page, get_llms_index, list_blocks, and list_components each have a clear intent. The only mild overlap is between get_component_docs and get_docs_page, since component docs are also docs pages, but the descriptions resolve the boundary well enough.
All tool names follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* fetches a specific artifact and list_* returns a collection. The naming is predictable and easy to extend, making the set feel coherent.
Six tools is a well-scoped number for a documentation-oriented server. Each tool covers a distinct retrieval or listing need without adding redundancy or unnecessary surface area.
The set covers core workflows well: component docs, component source, general docs pages, an AI index, and listings for components and blocks. A minor gap is the lack of a direct block detail/source fetcher, but agents can likely work around it using the docs page and list tools.