design.get_visual_contextRender a selected design node or screen as PNG and return its visual metadata, giving coding agents the visual context needed to understand the design.
Render the selected node or screen as PNG image content and return its visual metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| scope | No | screen | |
| screenId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the output is PNG image content plus visual metadata, and 'render' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, failure behavior, auth needs, or prerequisites like a live host or valid selection.
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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output type, making it easily parseable. Every phrase contributes meaning.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only contextual source. It is too sparse for a tool with three parameters and many sibling alternatives: no explanation of host/screenId, no mention of selection prerequisites, and no guidance on result format beyond 'PNG' and 'visual metadata.'
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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only maps 'selected node or screen' to the scope enum, but never explains the host parameter (figma vs xd) or screenId. An agent has to infer the meaning of key parameters from names alone.
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 action ('Render the selected node or screen as PNG image content') and the result ('return its visual metadata'). It specifies the resource and output type, making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling context tools like get_selection_context or get_screen_context, but the PNG/metadata angle provides enough distinction.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose get_visual_context over get_selection_context, get_screen_context, or export_ir. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'visual context' and 'PNG image content.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.