Anima MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (X-Figma-Token header), post-invocation workflow requirements (must download snapshots, parse data-variant attributes), and asset handling obligations. Does not mention rate limits or destructive potential, but covers the critical operational behaviors for this generation tool.

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?

Well-structured with clear headers, but the 'Inputs' section largely duplicates schema descriptions (wasted space). However, the 'CRITICAL' workflow section and 'Asset Handling' are vital, front-loaded context that justify the length. Could be more concise by referencing schema details instead of restating them.

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?

Excellent completeness for a complex 7-parameter generation tool without output schema. The description documents return values (files, assets, tokenUsage, snapshotsUrls, guidelines), authentication, and crucial post-processing workflow steps required for successful implementation. Distinguishes from siblings effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds crucial extraction semantics not in schema: specifically that nodeId requires replacing '-' with ':' in URL parameters, and provides URL extraction examples for fileKey. This guidance is essential for correct invocation and goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear specific action ('Convert a Figma design to production-ready code') and distinguishes itself from siblings (playground-create, etc.) by focusing specifically on Figma-to-code generation rather than playground management.

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?

Provides strong workflow guidance ('CRITICAL - Implementation Workflow' with 6 specific steps post-invocation) and detection heuristics for parameters ('Detect from the user's project'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' alternatives, but the specific Figma-focused scope makes usage boundaries clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON object mapping file paths to their content'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid file paths, leaving gaps for a tool that fetches multiple resources.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and return format, the second provides usage context and examples. Every phrase adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the return format and usage context, but doesn't cover error cases, performance implications, or how to handle large numbers of files. Given the complexity level, it's minimally complete but could be more robust.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing example file paths like 'README.md' and 'COMPONENTS.md', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints not in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch multiple documentation files') and resource ('by their paths'), with specific examples of file types. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'design_system-get_manifest', but the focus on fetching files rather than a manifest provides implicit differentiation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('after getting the manifest to retrieve specific files') and gives examples of appropriate file types. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the mention of 'manifest' suggests 'design_system-get_manifest' as a prerequisite.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format ('JSON object mapping file/folder paths to metadata'), which is helpful, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. It adequately explains what the tool does but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 core purpose and followed by return value details. Every word contributes meaning with zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, return format, and distinguishes the resource. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or usage prerequisites, slightly reducing completeness for a tool with no structured safety or output information.

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 the input schema already documents the single parameter 'dsId' as 'The design system ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but non-enhancing coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get'), resource ('manifest.json file'), and purpose ('describing the design system documentation structure'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'design_system-get_files' which likely retrieves actual files rather than metadata.

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 implies usage for retrieving documentation structure metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'design_system-get_files' or other siblings. The context is clear but lacks comparative or exclusionary advice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ({success, sessionId, playgroundUrl}) and mentions the X-Figma-Token header requirement for f2c mode, but lacks information on rate limits, persistence duration, async processing delays, or error handling behaviors.

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?

Well-structured with markdown headers and bullet points that group related constraints logically. The information density is appropriate for a complex polymorphic tool with 10 parameters, though the formatting could be slightly more compact.

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 the high complexity (10 parameters, 3 distinct modes, conditional requirements) and lack of output schema, the description successfully covers the essential operational patterns. It documents the return payload structure and captures the cross-parameter validation rules (e.g., which fields apply to which type).

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents individual fields. The description adds significant value by organizing parameters into logical groups ('Input types', 'Common fields', 'React-only fields') and clarifying the conditional dependencies between the 'type' parameter and other fields (e.g., which styling options apply to which type).

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 opens with a specific action ('Create an Anima playground') and identifies the three distinct input sources (prompt, website URL, Figma design). It clearly distinguishes this as a code generation/playground creation tool rather than a simple file upload or project management function.

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?

Excellent documentation of the three mutually exclusive input modes (p2c, l2c, f2c) with specific requirements for each. However, it does not mention when to use the sibling tool 'codegen-figma_to_code' versus the f2c mode here, nor does it clarify when to use 'playground-publish' in the workflow.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It effectively documents mode-specific return structures and prerequisites. However, it omits operational details like whether publishing overwrites existing deployments, idempotency, or resource persistence.

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?

Well-organized with clear hierarchical structure (Modes and Returns sections) and front-loaded purpose statement. Minor redundancy occurs between the Modes bullet points and the Returns section, which essentially duplicate information.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description appropriately compensates by documenting return value shapes for both modes. It adequately covers the 4-parameter input space and explains the prerequisite chain. Could be improved with side-effect disclosure typical of publishing operations.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the origin of sessionId (from playground-create), documents full return value structures (compensating for missing output schema), and clarifies mode-specific requirements.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('Anima playground session'), clearly stating it deploys to either a 'live URL' or 'design system npm package'. It distinguishes from sibling 'playground-create' by explicitly noting it requires a sessionId from that tool, establishing the workflow sequence.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing guidance ('Requires a sessionId from a previously created playground via playground-create') and clearly delineates when to use each mode ('webapp' vs 'designSystem'). Lacks explicit mention of sibling alternatives like 'project-download_from_playground' for cases where local download is preferred over publishing.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return type (pre-signed URL), expiration constraint (valid 10 min), content details (zip of all project source files), and authorization requirements. Does not mention error cases or rate limits, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose (sentence 1), input/output contract with expiration detail (sentence 2), prerequisites (sentence 3). No redundancy, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Comprehensive despite no output schema: explains pre-signed URL return value, 10-minute expiration, zip content, and auth barriers. With only one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for invocation. Minor gap: could mention URL expiry handling.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed description and example for playgroundUrl. Description mentions 'Provide the playground URL' which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but with complete schema documentation, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'Download' + resource 'project files from an Anima playground session' + format 'as a zip file'. Distinguishes clearly from siblings: it downloads existing files vs codegen-figma_to_code (converts Figma), playground-create (creates), and playground-publish (publishes).

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?

Provides clear prerequisites ('Requires authentication and user must have access to the session') and input requirements ('Provide the playground URL'). Lacks explicit contrast with siblings (e.g., 'use this after creating with playground-create'), but functional context is clear.

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