Skip to main content
Glama

Valet

by io.github.valetdotdev

Get the design system

get_design_system
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the identity brief to follow before you build or substantially rewrite an artifact. Returns the caller's organization design system when it has one, otherwise the Valet default. Honor an artifact form the user requests. Otherwise choose the artifact form and treatment from its audience, job, and material. The design system supplies identity, not structure. Follow it wherever it speaks, subject to the user's explicit request and to safety, accessibility, and medium correctness. Artifact guidance and model judgment decide every choice it leaves open; do not layer the default design system beneath it. Files a user supplies finished are published unchanged, not restyled. By default this requires a connected account. Pass anonymous: true only when building an explicitly anonymous site; no organization is then consulted and the Valet default is returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
org_nameNoThe Valet organization whose design system to read. Omit to use the organization the account joined first.
anonymousNoSet true only when building an explicitly anonymous site. No organization is consulted and the Valet default is returned. Omit for the account-first path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / anonymous
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true only when building an explicitly anonymous site. No organization is consulted and the Valet default is returned. Omit for the account-first path.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / org_name / description
      Previous value: -"The Valet organization whose design system to read. Omit to use the organization the account joined first. With no connected account the built-in default is returned."New value: +"The Valet organization whose design system to read. Omit to use the organization the account joined first."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it returns the organization's design system if present, otherwise the Valet default; it explains the connected-account requirement; it specifies that anonymous access skips the organization lookup; and it clarifies that user-supplied finished files are published unchanged. These details give an agent accurate expectations about side effects and fallback behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, and subsequent sentences cover fallback behavior, usage constraints, and exceptions. It is dense rather than rambling, though some phrasing could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers all essential context: when to call it, what it returns in both default and anonymous modes, the account requirement, how to treat the returned guidance, and an explicit non-obvious behavior ('do not layer the default design system'). No critical gap remains for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('org_name' and 'anonymous') well. The description mostly restates the schema's guidance about anonymous mode rather than adding new semantic meaning. It therefore meets the baseline for fully covered parameters but does not elevate beyond it.

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 first sentence states a clear, specific purpose: 'Get the identity brief to follow before you build or substantially rewrite an artifact.' It names the resource (design system), the verb (get), and the intended invocation point, and it is unmistakably distinct from the site/connector siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('before you build or substantially rewrite an artifact') and gives conditions such as 'Pass anonymous: true only when building an explicitly anonymous site.' It also provides a when-not instruction: 'do not layer the default design system beneath it.' It does not name alternative tools, but the sibling list contains no competing design-system tool, so the absence is not a real gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Valet toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action. The three list_* connector tools are clearly separated by scope (catalog vs attachable vs attached), and the site management tools are unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a uniform verb_noun snake_case pattern. Each name directly states the action and object, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the set covers two clear domains—site publishing and connector management—and each tool has a distinct role. The count is justified, if a bit heavy.

Completeness4/5

Site lifecycle is well covered: publish, list, get, rename, delete, access, and share. The connector lifecycle covers create, attach, detach, and call, but lacks delete/update connector operations, which are a minor gap.

Resources