View the plugin key used for pairing with Figma, or rotate it to replace the key and restart the daemon.
Show the plugin key; rotate:true replaces it and restarts the daemon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rotate | No | Replace the key and restart the daemon. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.6.1Input schema / properties / rotate / descriptionPrevious value: -"Generate a NEW key, invalidating the old one. Run figma_connect afterwards to restart the daemon."New value: +"Replace the key and restart the daemon."v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses the destructive behavior: rotate:true replaces the key and restarts the daemon. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and adds specific context about what is affected, which goes beyond the annotation alone.
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 semicolon-separated sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then introduces the optional variant, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the destructive branch sufficiently. It omits return-value details and usage prerequisites, but these are minor given the tool's low complexity.
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 schema fully documents the rotate parameter, but the description adds the default behavior of simply showing the key when rotate is not true. This clarifies the optional nature of the parameter and the outcome of the default call.
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 clearly states the primary action ('Show the plugin key') and the optional destructive variant ('rotate:true replaces it and restarts the daemon'). This distinguishes figma_pairing from its siblings by specifying a unique resource and operation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use figma_pairing versus its siblings, nor when rotation is appropriate or what prerequisites exist. The only condition mentioned is the rotate flag, but not the context that should trigger it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.