list_components
List shipped Electrik Slate Blade components with docs URLs.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Slate
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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.
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.