Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
figma-bridge-mcp

figma-bridge-mcp

by KaiUweHella
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

figma_status

Read-only

Check the connection status between MCP and Figma Desktop plugin, verify write policy, and optionally validate REST access to diagnose integration readiness.

Instructions

This Figma Bridge only: round-trip status, write policy, optional REST check.

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": "figma_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileKeyNoFigma key/URL for REST validation.
probePluginNoProbe plugin eval; false checks only its socket.
validateRestNoValidate the optional REST token.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / fileKey / description
      Previous value: -"File key/URL for REST file-access validation fallback."New value: +"Figma key/URL for REST validation."
    • changedInput schema / properties / probePlugin / description
      Previous value: -"Plugin eval probe (default true); false = socket only."New value: +"Probe plugin eval; false checks only its socket."
    • changedInput schema / properties / validateRest / description
      Previous value: -"Also validate the optional REST token remotely."New value: +"Validate the optional REST token."
  2. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds that it performs a round-trip status check and can validate a REST token, which is useful, but it does not clarify what 'write policy' means or how the optional REST check behaves when skipped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, scannable, and front-loaded with scope and purpose. It loses a point because the telegraphic fragment style creates mild ambiguity, for example whether 'Figma Bridge only' is an API restriction or a domain qualifier.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what a successful status response contains or what a negative result means, but it does not. It also leaves 'write policy' and 'round-trip' behavior underspecified, so an agent can select the tool but not confidently interpret its result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents fileKey, probePlugin, and validateRest clearly. The description's high-level status/REST phrasing maps to those parameters but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the input schema provides.

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 identifies the resource (Figma Bridge) and the three relevant facets: round-trip status, write policy, and optional REST check. It is not a tautology, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling tool for differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative tools such as figma_connect or figma_pairing. The phrase 'Figma Bridge only' restricts scope but does not help an agent decide when this status tool is the right choice.

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