Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

audit_accessibility

Run a full accessibility audit on a Figma node tree, checking contrast, touch targets, font sizes, and focus indicators to identify issues.

Instructions

Run a full accessibility audit on a node tree. Checks contrast, touch targets, font sizes, focus indicators.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "audit_accessibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesRoot node to audit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 behavioral scope by listing the four audit areas, and 'audit' implies a read-only analysis. However, it does not state what the tool returns, whether it modifies anything, or what happens when issues are found.

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?

Two crisp sentences with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded and the check list is compact and informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool, the invocation requirements are clear, but the lack of an output schema and any return-format description leaves the agent unsure what an audit result looks like. It also doesn't clarify how this relates to closely related siblings like lint_design, check_contrast, or generate_a11y_report.

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% and the description reinforces the 'node tree' concept, but it adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already says. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 clear verb ('Run') and resource ('node tree'), and enumerates exactly what the audit checks: contrast, touch targets, font sizes, focus indicators. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_contrast (single check) and generate_a11y_report (report generation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the comprehensive accessibility audit tool, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over check_contrast, fix_touch_targets, lint_design, or generate_a11y_report. There is clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools