Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

component_audit

Identify component issues in Figma: detect detached instances, missing components, and unused variants to maintain design consistency.

Instructions

Audit components: find detached instances, missing components, unused variants.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "component_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdNoScope

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool finds component issues, which implies a non-mutating audit, but it does not state side effects, output format, or whether it modifies anything. 'Missing components' is also left vague.

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?

The description is one tight, front-loaded sentence with a colon and a scannable list of audit targets. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is too lean for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain what 'missing components' means, what the return value looks like, or what the optional nodeId scope actually scopes. Given the large sibling set of audit/validation tools, this creates ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning to nodeId beyond what the schema already says ('Scope'). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') with a clear resource ('components') and enumerates concrete outputs: detached instances, missing components, unused variants. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_components or validate_component, which have different purposes.

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 usage for auditing components, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as validate_component, detect_inconsistencies, or scan_design_system. There are no exclusions or conditions provided.

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