Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

check_naming

Detect generic layer names like 'Frame 123' or 'Group 5' to enforce consistent naming conventions in Figma designs.

Instructions

Check layer naming conventions. Flags generic names like "Frame 123", "Group 5".

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": "check_naming"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesRoot node to check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool flags generic names and gives concrete examples, which suggests a read-only check, but it does not explicitly state side effects, return format, or whether it validates only the root node or its entire subtree.

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 concise sentences deliver the purpose and a concrete example with no wasted words. The main behavior is front-loaded and immediately scannable.

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 check tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states what is checked and gives examples of flagged names. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return value and exact scope of the check unspecified.

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 schema covers the single parameter with a clear description ('Root node to check'), so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail, keeping this at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: checking layer naming conventions and flagging generic names. It is specific enough to distinguish from rename-focused siblings like rename_node or batch_rename, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_rename, rename_node, lint_design, or check_consistency. The description implies its use for naming validation but provides no exclusions or decision criteria.

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