get_component_docs
Fetch markdown documentation for a Slate component (e.g. button, dialog, input).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component slug, e.g. button, alert-dialog, dark-mode-toggle |
Slate
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.