As a co-maintainer of XMLUI I am acutely sensitive to agents fumbling as they build XMLUI apps. When something that should be a no-brainer isn’t, because the MCP search didn’t find the answer it should have, I file an issue and then direct an agent to write the missing document.
That new doc is a testable fix. For example, I asked Claude to find its failed searches for the select-to-radio conversion in the MCP log. The response:
Two how-to searches, both at 21:12, both misses:
“radio group mutually exclusive choice change value form input” — top hits: use-a-custom-formitem, prefill-a-form-from-an-api-response, use-regex-validation-in-formitem. Form-adjacent noise, zero radio content.
“choose one of two options horizontal selector” — the rephrase moments later, attacking from the UX side instead of the component side. Also nothing.
The failing searches had returned only weak matches with a top relevance score around 0.7. After adding the new doc I asked it to repeat the search and compare. The new document surfaced at #1 with a 4.2 score, six times higher than anything else. (Because the MCP server can pin the version of the docs it consults, direct A/B comparison is possible.) I also tried a handful of synthetic queries, like “radio buttons for a small set of options”. These confirmed the result.
