Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figma Live Design QA MCP

Figma Live Design QA MCP

by Mad7droid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Check design tokens

check_tokens

Compares every color, font size, font weight, and border radius in a build against the design token set, reporting mismatches and unverified items with severity levels.

Instructions

Compare every colour, font size, font weight and border radius in the build against the design token set. Returns findings grouped by value, capped at 50, with severities. Dimensions where no token set could be inferred are reported as "not verified" rather than guessed at.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "runId": "<runId>"
    },
    "name": "check_tokens"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runIdYesThe runId returned by capture_design.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral context: it compares specific items, caps results at 50, includes severities, and reports unknown dimensions. Could mention read-only nature.

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 two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with key information. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and edge cases (not verified). Could note it's a check, not a modification.

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 single parameter runId is fully described in the schema, and the description repeats that it comes from capture_design. Baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool compares design elements (colour, font size, etc.) against a token set and returns findings with details. It distinguishes from siblings like capture_design and capture_build by focusing on comparison.

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?

While the description implies use after capturing a build, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like run_design_qa or build_report.

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