Retrieve all pages in the current Figma document to get an overview of its structure and quickly navigate to any section.
List all pages in the document.
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": "list_pages"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action ('List all pages') and does not disclose return format, ordering, read-only nature, or any edge cases. For a simple read operation this may be sufficient for a human, but for an AI agent it adds little beyond the tool name itself.
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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters and no output schema, but the description is bare. It tells the agent what the tool does, but it does not specify what a returned page list looks like, whether it includes only top-level pages, or how this list differs from similar tools like get_page_structure or page_overview. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description alone is only minimally adequate.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is effectively 100% (an empty schema fully documents that no parameters exist). The description needs to add no parameter details, so the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all pages') with a clear scope ('in the document'). It states exactly what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_page_structure or page_overview that may also return page-related information.
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: call this when you need a list of all pages in the document. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it reference any alternative tools. With many page-related siblings available, this implicit guidance is weak.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.