design.get_screen_contextGet a specific screen or artboard with its normalized child elements. Use this to obtain structured design context from Figma or Adobe XD for a given screen.
Return one screen/artboard and its normalized descendants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| screenId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Return one screen/artboard and its normalized descendants', but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what 'normalized' means, what the output structure looks like, or any limitations. This falls far short of what an agent needs to anticipate tool behavior.
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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded and the use of 'Return' and 'screen/artboard' makes the action and resource immediately clear. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple tool.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a few parameters, the description leaves too much unstated. It does not explain what the returned data contains, what the role of 'host' is, how to choose the correct screen ID, or how this differs from other context-related tools. More contextual detail is needed for correct use.
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 0% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain what the 'host' enum errors or how 'screenId' should be formatted. The description mentions 'screen/context' but never ties it to the actual parameters, so the agent gains little beyond the raw 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a clear resource ('one screen/artboard and its normalized descendants'). It conveys the primary purpose, and 'screen/context' suggests a distinct scope among sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from tools like get_design_context or get_selection_context, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use 'get_screen_context' versus alternatives like 'get_design_context', 'get_selection_context', or 'get_visual_context'. There are no conditions, exclusions, or examples to help an agent decide which tool to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.