Retrieve all local styles including colors, text, and effects from your Figma document.
Get all local styles (colors, text, effects)
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": "figma_get_styles"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention potential side effects, return format, or access requirements. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but detailed transparency is lacking.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded. It is not verbose, but could benefit from slight expansion about return format or read-only nature. Still, it is efficient.
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 no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description covers the basic function. However, it omits context like return type (list of style objects) and whether it is a read operation. For a simple tool, it is 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters). The description adds no parameter information, but baseline is 3 due to high coverage. No additional value beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool gets all local styles and specifies the types (colors, text, effects), making the purpose highly specific. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like figma_get_components and figma_get_variables.
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 usage is implied: use when you need local styles. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives are mentioned, and sibling tools are not compared.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.