List all available @marmoui/ui components with names, descriptions, categories, and prop counts. Use to discover what exists. Prefer search_components when you already know the use case (form, table, dialog, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status (e.g., "stable", "beta") | |
| category | No | Filter by category (e.g., "Components", "Layout") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the output fields but does not explicitly confirm read-only status, pagination behavior, or how the optional filters interact with the 'List all' statement. Adequate but lacking richer behavioral context.
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 three concise sentences: what it does, when to use it, and which alternative to prefer. Each sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return fields. It does not mention pagination or how to combine filters, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity. Slightly incomplete due to the lack of explicit read-only confirmation and filter behavior guidance.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'status' and 'category' parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only implying an unfiltered list by default. Since the schema already documents the parameters, 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 tool lists all available @marmoui/ui components with specific fields (names, descriptions, categories, prop counts). It explicitly distinguishes from search_components by presenting an alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use to discover what exists' and 'Prefer search_components when you already know the use case'. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context, naming the sibling tool as an alternative.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but review_generated_code and validate_component_usage are very similar in functionality, differentiated only by intended usage context. list_components and search_components also have some overlap, though descriptions clarify their preferred use cases.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_component_info, list_components, review_generated_code). The verbs are clear and the naming convention is uniform throughout.
14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool serves a distinct role in the workflow: discovery, guidance, generation, validation, and prototype sharing. The count feels appropriate for the server's comprehensive purpose.
The server covers the full generation workflow: discover components, get guidelines, generate code, validate, and deploy/share. However, there is no tool to retrieve or list saved custom components, and prototype management is limited to deploy and feedback, leaving minor gaps in persisted resource handling.