vault_get_tokensRetrieve design tokens—colors, text styles, and effects—from a vaulted Figma document using its docId. Access these token values offline without rate limits.
Colors, text styles and effects of the document. Nodes refer to them via text.token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docId | Yes | Document id as returned by vault_list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the useful context that tokens are referenced by nodes via 'text.token', which helps the agent understand the data model. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but for a read-only token lookup with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the resource and contents; the second explains the relationship to nodes, which is valuable context. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains what tokens are and how they are referenced, which is enough for an agent to decide to call it. The only minor gap is not describing the return shape, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is not critical.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the single docId parameter. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline 3 is correct.
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 states a specific resource ('design system tokens') and clarifies what it contains ('colors, text styles and effects'), which distinguishes it from document content or assets. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from vault_get_doc, vault_get_node, and vault_get_asset.
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?
The description implies usage context by explaining that nodes refer to tokens via 'text.token', which hints that this tool is for resolving token references. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vault_get_doc or vault_get_asset, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.