Detects undefined CSS custom properties (variables) and provides suggested fixes with values and insertion locations.
分析 CSS 文件中缺失的变量定义，并提供修复建议。扫描 CSS 内容，检测在 :root 或其他选择器中引用但未定义的 CSS 自定义属性（变量），为每个缺失变量生成 suggestedFix（建议值和插入位置）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| css | Yes | 要分析的 CSS 文本内容 | |
| filePath | No | 可选，CSS 文件路径（用于输出引用） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.9.5v1.9.1v1.8.5Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "definitions": {
- "description": "所有变量定义列表",
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "line": {
- "type": "number"
- },
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "selector": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "value": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "entries": {
- "description": "检测到的问题条目列表",
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "column": {
- "description": "列号",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "line": {
- "description": "行号",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "message": {
- "description": "问题描述",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "selector": {
- "description": "所在选择器",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "severity": {
- "description": "严重级别",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "suggestedFix": {
- "description": "修复建议",
- "properties": {
- "insertAfter": {
- "description": "建议插入在该变量定义之后，可为 null（表示插入到文件末尾）",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "value": {
- "description": "建议的定义值，如 #176b87",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "usedIn": {
- "description": "在哪个属性或变量中被引用",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "variable": {
- "description": "缺失的 CSS 变量名，如 --primary",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "file": {
- "description": "分析的 CSS 来源",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "missingVarOverview": {
- "description": "缺失变量总览（去重）",
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "description": "出现的次数",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "suggestedValue": {
- "description": "建议的默认值",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "variable": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "summary": {
- "properties": {
- "circularReferences": {
- "description": "循环引用数",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "missingVariables": {
- "description": "缺失的变量数",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "totalDefinitions": {
- "description": "定义的变量总数",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "totalReferences": {
- "description": "引用变量总数",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states that the tool analyzes CSS for missing variable definitions and generates suggestedFix, implying it is read-only. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects, but the behavior is fairly transparent.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized with no waste.
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?
Given no output schema, the description lacks details on the return structure. It mentions suggestedFix but does not fully specify output fields. Adequate but could be more complete for an analysis tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context linking parameters to the tool's analysis purpose, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already describes.
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 uses specific verbs (分析, 扫描, 检测, 生成) and clearly states the resource (CSS files/variables). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are CSS-specific.
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 does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It merely describes the tool's function without contextualizing its use versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/validpilot/ai-verify-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server