get_component_source
Fetch the primary Blade source for a Slate component from the 3.x GitHub branch.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component slug, e.g. button, dialog, toaster |
Electrik Slate
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions fetching from a specific branch, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or potential network/rate-limit considerations. Some context is added, but not comprehensive.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action, target, and branch. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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 sufficiently complete. It specifies what is fetched and from where, which is enough to guide invocation.
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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'name' with examples. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: 'primary Blade source for a Slate component from the 3.x GitHub branch.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_docs and list_components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context of fetching source is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_component_docs or others. The distinction is implied by the term 'source' but not spelled out.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct: component docs, component source, docs pages, and index browsing each target a specific need. The only potential confusion is between get_component_docs and get_docs_page, since component docs are a subset of docs pages, but the descriptions clarify the intended usage.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_* and list_*), with clear and predictable object nouns. This makes it easy to infer what each tool does before reading its description.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for a documentation and component lookup server. Each tool covers a distinct need—listing, fetching docs, fetching source, and browsing pages—without unnecessary duplication.
Completeness4/5
The core workflows of exploring components, fetching component docs, and retrieving source code are well covered. A minor gap is that blocks can only be listed, with no corresponding block detail or source tool, and there is no search capability beyond the llms.txt index.