PicassoWeb

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.10.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, reinforced by explicit use/avoid guidance and follow-up suggestions. Even similar tools like analyze_site and analyze_html are cleanly separated by input source, while create_replication_kit is clearly framed as the consolidated alternative to several granular first-pass tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: analyze, inspect, capture, extract, clone, compare, create, crawl. The verbs also cluster semantically with their targets, making the naming predictable and easy to scan.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the set is well-scoped for a web design extraction and replication server. The count is justified because each tool targets a distinct analysis, extraction, creation, or verification step, and create_replication_kit consolidates common first-pass work rather than making the set feel bloated.
Completeness4/5
The toolkit covers the full evidence-gathering and replication workflow: analyze, inspect, extract, clone, generate a full kit, compare, and crawl. The main gap is that after compare_replica identifies mismatches, there is no update/repair tool to fix an existing replica, forcing the agent to re-clone or hand-edit instead of closing the loop directly.
Average 4.5/5 across 12 of 14 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it renders supplied markup without navigating to a remote URL, does not write files, and extracts the same design-system data as a remote analysis. No contradiction exists; only a bit more could be said about resource limits, but the provided behavior is sufficient.
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 front-loaded with the critical scoping and alternatives, and it remains compact for a tool with nine parameters and many siblings. There is minor redundancy ('renders supplied markup' appears twice and 'remote URL' is mentioned more than once), which prevents a perfect score.
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?
Given the nine parameters, rich schema descriptions, output schema presence, and large sibling list, the description covers what is needed: when to use it, when to avoid it, what it processes, side-effect profile, and cost. Return values are not described, but the output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain them.
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 high (89%), so the schema already documents most parameters in detail. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'Render supplied markup,' which maps to the html parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific action ('inspect', 'render', 'extract design-system data') applied to a clearly defined resource: generated, offline, or test HTML the agent already has. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming live-URL alternatives, so the agent can tell this tool apart without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('generated, offline, or test HTML that you already have') and an explicit when-not-to-use condition ('source is a live URL'), naming analyze_site, inspect_component, and create_replication_kit as alternatives. This is direct routing guidance with no inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds complementary operational details: it uses one browser page for one URL, has standard cost, does not write files, and can lead to follow-up tools if extraction is incomplete. This goes beyond simply restating annotations by explaining session impact and boundary behavior.
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 compact and front-loaded, putting the main use case and primary alternative in the first two sentences. The remaining sentences add meaningful behavioral, cost, session, and follow-up context without filler or redundant repetition.
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?
Given a rich output schema, fully documented parameters, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the remaining operational and routing context an agent needs. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and the key exclusion (create_replication_kit) is explicitly addressed.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage across all 12 parameters, including defaults, ranges, and enums, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description's extraction targets are outputs rather than parameter clarifications, but no parameter remains unexplained and the description does not need to compensate for a coverage gap.
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 and resource ('design-system overview of one page') and lists concrete extraction targets: design tokens, typography, CSS variables, primitives, and reusable component families. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_replication_kit by stating it does not create a replication folder, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use it ('design-system overview of one page') and when to avoid it ('complete full-page build package'), naming the alternative create_replication_kit. It also suggests follow-up tools (inspect_component, clone_section, extract_responsive) when evidence is missing, giving the agent clear routing guidance beyond a single binary choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Cost: heavy', 'uses one browser page for one URL', and 'May write files when an output path is provided'. These details disclose side effects and resource impact not captured by the annotation flags, without contradicting them.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by the exclusion, behavior, cost, session model, and follow-ups. Every sentence adds useful decision-making or safety information with no 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 complex 16-parameter tool with an output schema and open-world implications, the description covers the essential operational context: heavy cost, single-page session, file-writing side effect, trigger types, and follow-ups. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and use the tool effectively.
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 input schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description contributes high-level context like triggers and output files, but does not need to compensate for schema gaps. 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 states a specific purpose: observe actual motion, especially JS-driven animation, and sample frames, live animations, and numeric style curves. It explicitly distinguishes itself from extract_animations, so an agent can select between siblings without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit when-to-use ('Use this when you need to observe actual motion'), when-to-avoid ('Avoid it when declared CSS and WAAPI definitions are sufficient; use extract_animations'), and names likely follow-ups. This is direct routing guidance with no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: cost level, one browser page per URL, and the fact that files may be written when an output path is provided. It does not contradict the annotations and provides enough extra operational context.
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 compact and front-loaded with the most important decision guidance (when to use vs. avoid). The cost, session, and follow-up statements are each useful and do not waste words. It is structured so an agent can quickly parse selection criteria before invocation details.
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?
Given the rich input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all the essential decision-making context: intended use, exclusions, side effects, resource usage, and follow-up alternatives. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without guessing.
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 input schema already fully documents all 13 parameters. The description mentions capture modes and file output, but those are already reflected in the schema. It adds no meaningfully new parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a concrete action and resource: capture a website screenshot as visual evidence or reference image. It also distinguishes the tool from create_replication_kit, which is a key sibling differentiator. This is far beyond a vague restatement of the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says when to use the tool ('when you only need visual evidence or a reference image') and when to avoid it ('when you need the full implementation package; create_replication_kit already includes screenshots'). It also suggests possible follow-ups when evidence is still missing, which helps an agent decide among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond that: 'May write files when an output path is provided,' 'uses one browser page for one URL,' and 'Cost: standard.' This gives the agent useful cost and side-effect context that the annotations alone do not convey.
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 compact and front-loaded with the most important decision info: use case, exclusions, return contents, cost, session constraints, and follow-ups. Every sentence contributes actionable guidance with no 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 tool with 14 parameters, the description covers scope, return artifacts, side effects, cost, session behavior, and follow-up tools, while the output schema and 100% parameter coverage handle the remaining details. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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 all 14 parameters. The description mentions 'an optional screenshot' and 'output path,' which lightly reinforce two parameters, but it does not need to add much parameter-level detail given the schema's completeness.
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 names a specific verb and resource: producing a 'portable implementation package for one known section.' It explicitly contrasts with create_replication_kit for entire pages, which makes the tool's scope immediately distinguishable from a sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives direct when-to-use guidance ('when you need a portable implementation package for one known section') and an explicit when-not-to-use instruction with a named alternative ('Avoid it when you need an entire page; use create_replication_kit'). It also suggests relevant follow-up tools, giving an agent a clear decision path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the operation is heavy, the session loads both the original and the comparison target, it does not write files, and it performs deterministic perceptual diffing. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: usage conditions first, then behavior, then cost/session side effects, then follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?
Despite high complexity—20 parameters and an output schema—the description covers the essential context an agent needs: when to call it, what it does, its cost, side effects, and a fallback tool. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. No critical gaps remain.
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 input schema already documents all 20 parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds high-level framing, such as perceptual diffing and worst-mismatch attribution, but does not need to repeat parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: compare a replica against an original via a deterministic perceptual diff and attribute visual mismatches. It also names the same-page noise-floor self-check mode, which distinguishes this tool from any sibling that merely captures or inspects a page.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use it ('when a replica exists and you need evidence-driven visual verification or a same-page noise-floor check') and when to avoid it ('Avoid it when you have not implemented a replica yet'). It also suggests a follow-up tool, inspect_component, when evidence is still missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the operation is heavy, loads several bounded same-origin pages, may write files when an output path is provided, and might require follow-up tools. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Four compact sentences, with the most decision-relevant guidance (when to use, when to avoid) front-loaded. The cost, session scope, side effects, and follow-up routing are each stated in a single phrase with no filler or redundancy.
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 complex tool with 18 parameters and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly: use-case boundary, scope limits, write behavior, cost, and next steps. The heavy lifting on parameters is done by the fully documented schema.
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 input schema fully documents all 18 parameters. The description adds only broad context about bounded same-origin crawling and conditional file output, which slightly reinforces but does not materially extend the parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('crawl'), a clear resource ('a site's design system'), and the exact purpose: identifying shared versus page-specific design patterns across several pages. It also distinguishes itself from single-page tools by explicitly saying to avoid it when one page is the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use ('goal spans several pages'), when-not-to-use ('one page is the target'), and names alternatives ('analyze or create a kit for that page instead'). It even names create_replication_kit as a possible follow-up, which is strong routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate non-read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context by noting it may write files, is cost-heavy, and captures one URL at multiple viewport states. It does not detail overwrite behavior or auth requirements, but the annotations plus this description cover the essential safety and side-effect profile.
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 dense but every sentence earns its place: selection guidance, explicit exclusions, outputs, cost, side effects, replaced tools, and possible follow-ups. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded, and nothing feels redundant or wasted.
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 complex 18-parameter composite tool with an output schema, the description provides complete context: when to use it, when to avoid it, what it produces, what side effects it has, which siblings it replaces, and what to try next if evidence is missing. No critical selection or invocation context is absent.
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%, with all 18 parameters already well documented. The description adds a small amount of interpretive context, such as single-URL and multi-viewport behavior, but does not need to restate parameter details. This matches the baseline for full 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 clearly defines the tool's purpose: creating a broad first-pass replication kit for a complete page, with an explicit list of outputs such as screenshots, assets, design data, layout trees, animations, and a replication guide. It also distinguishes this tool from narrower alternatives like single-component extraction or screenshot capture, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('broad first-pass package for reproducing a complete page') and when-not-to-use guidance ('one component, one screenshot, or a quick design overview'). It also names the exact sibling tools this replaces and lists possible follow-up tools, leaving little to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses the non-read-only behavior ('May write files when an output path is provided'), resource cost ('standard'), and session scope ('uses one browser page for one URL'), going beyond the annotations. The annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, so there is no contradiction.
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 compact and front-loaded: usage guidance, exclusion of the sibling, asset list, cost/session/side effects, and follow-ups each earn their place in a few short sentences. No 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?
Given the 14-parameter schema with full coverage, an output schema, and non-conflicting annotations, the description supplies the remaining selection context: single-page scope, write behavior, cost, session resources, and suggested follow-up tools. An agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema already documents every parameter including formats, defaults, and outputDir's manifest behavior. The description adds only a general 'original asset files' frame and repeats categories already present in the types enum, neither of which adds much beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: download original asset files from one page, and explicitly lists the asset categories and a usage manifest. It also names create_replication_kit as the sibling that is not this tool, so an agent can distinguish them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states exactly when to use ('when you specifically need the original asset files from one page') and when to avoid ('when starting a full-page replica'), naming create_replication_kit as the alternative that already downloads assets. It also lists clone_section and create_replication_kit as follow-ups for missing evidence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond these: it uses one browser page per URL, does not write files, has standard cost, and returns a bounded tree. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 compact and appropriately front-loaded: it opens with when to use, follows with when to avoid, then states output characteristics, cost, session usage, file behavior, and follow-ups. Every sentence contributes useful routing or behavioral information with no redundancy.
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 12-parameter tool with a rich input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the remaining decision-relevant context: when to choose it, what it returns at a high level, side effects (no writes, single page), cost class, and next steps. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 input schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds little parameter-specific detail, but it reinforces the notion of a subtree (matching rootSelector) and bounded output (matching maxDepth/maxNodes), which is sufficient given the schema's completeness.
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 tool extracts structural geometry (a bounded layout tree with sections, scroll containers, positioning, stacking, grid, and flex detail) for a page or subtree. It explicitly contrasts this with full replication packages and multiple-viewport needs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like extract_responsive and create_replication_kit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit 'Use this when' condition and an 'Avoid it when' exclusion, naming the exact scenarios that should route elsewhere (full replication package, multiple viewport widths). It also lists concrete follow-up tools (inspect_component, extract_responsive) when evidence is still missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: 'Cost: light,' 'Session: uses one browser page for one URL,' 'Does not write files,' and follow-up routing. This is more than the bare safety profile, though it could be more specific about rate limits or output-count behavior; no contradiction exists.
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?
Four sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the alternative is given immediately, return values are listed compactly, and cost/session/file-write/follow-up notes each earn their place. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given 19 parameters, 13 siblings, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough: it defines scope, names the main alternative, states what is returned, clarifies session/cost/side effects, and suggests follow-ups. The output schema handles return details, so nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 baseline is 3. The main description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what each schema property already states, though it does reinforce the targeting concept ('element, role, or text target') that maps to role/text/roleName/selector. This is adequate but not exceptional.
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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'exact style and state X-ray of a known element, role, or text target.' It also enumerates concrete return values (computed styles, cascade rules, variables, box geometry, fonts, interaction states) and explicitly differentiates from clone_section, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit when-to-use ('Use this when you need an exact style and state X-ray') and a when-not-to-use with a named alternative ('Avoid it when you need portable HTML, scoped CSS, assets, and a screenshot; use clone_section'). It also lists possible follow-up tools if evidence is missing, which further guides selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation is cost-heavy, uses one browser page for one URL, and may write files when an output path is provided. This provides practical behavioral context about side effects and resource usage that annotations alone do not convey.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by exclusions, cost, session constraints, and follow-ups. Every sentence contributes new, actionable information without repetition or 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 tool with 13 parameters, the description fairly covers what it does, when to use it, when to avoid it, cost implications, file-writing side effects, session constraints, and likely follow-ups. An output schema exists, so return-value details are already covered elsewhere.
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 input schema already documents all 13 parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds overall context but does not need to add parameter-level semantics because the schema fully covers that responsibility.
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 states a specific action and resource: capturing UI that is hidden behind interactions and whose selectors are unknown. It also names concrete UI types such as menus, dialogs, tabs, and accordions, and the sibling tool capture_motion is explicitly contrasted, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('when important UI is hidden behind interactions and you do not yet know its selectors'), an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('when you already know the target component or need continuous motion sampling'), and names follow-up alternatives like inspect_component, clone_section, and capture_motion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds useful operational context: standard cost, one browser page per URL, no file writes, and a limitation note about missing evidence. This goes beyond the structured metadata and matches the annotations.
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 concise and well-structured: usage guidance is front-loaded, followed by extraction scope, then operational constraints and follow-up tools. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
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?
Despite the tool's 14 parameters, the schema and output schema cover the technical details, and the description covers purpose, exclusions, operational limits, and follow-up paths. An agent has everything needed for correct selection and 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description is not responsible for documenting individual parameters. It references output categories like generated CSS and WAAPI records that map to includeGeneratedCss and maxWaapiAnimations, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: extracting static motion definitions and replication-ready CSS. It enumerates concrete artifacts (keyframes, transitions, timings, scroll effects, WAAPI records, generated CSS) and explicitly distinguishes itself from capture_motion, so an agent can disambiguate without reading schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives an explicit when-to-use condition, an explicit avoidance condition, and names the correct alternative (capture_motion). It also lists possible follow-up tools if evidence is missing, providing complete routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Cost: heavy', 'captures one URL at multiple viewport states', 'May write files when an output path is provided', and possible follow-ups. Annotations already provide readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, and the description enriches them with operational details without contradiction.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: purpose, exclusions, function, cost/session/side effects, and follow-ups. It is front-loaded with the intended use case and keeps the operational caveats compact.
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?
With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, cost, side effects, and follow-up paths. Nothing critical for correct tool selection or invocation is missing.
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 baseline is 3. The description only references 'output path' and 'requested viewport widths' without adding any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.
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?
States a specific verb 'Compare' with a concrete resource ('media rules and layout trees') and clarifies scope ('across requested viewport widths'). It also differentiates from siblings by telling the agent to avoid it for single-viewport or full-kit needs and names follow-up tools (inspect_component, compare_replica).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use ('when you need breakpoints and concrete layout changes'), when not to use ('Avoid it when one viewport is enough or a complete kit...'), and provides alternative follow-ups if evidence is missing. This is clear routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PicassoWeb MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/blackridder22/PicassoWeb/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/blackridder22/PicassoWeb)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PicassoWeb MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/blackridder22/PicassoWeb/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/blackridder22/PicassoWeb)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/blackridder22/PicassoWeb'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server