Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_figma_imagesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively. It details the entire 5-step workflow, explains what gets exported (nodes or children), describes compression behavior, uploads to cloud storage, and specifies the return format with examples. This provides excellent behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, workflow steps, parameter extraction guide, Args, Returns) and efficiently conveys complex information. While comprehensive, it maintains focus without unnecessary fluff, though the detailed parameter explanations make it somewhat lengthy.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multi-step workflow) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage, detailed parameter semantics, behavioral workflow, and return format with examples, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all 6 parameters. It explains what each parameter represents, provides extraction guidance for file_key and node_ids, lists supported formats, defines valid ranges for scale and compression_quality, and gives nuanced guidance on export_children behavior with use case examples.

  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's purpose with specific verbs ('导出、压缩并上传') and resources ('指定节点的图像'), detailing a multi-step workflow from Figma extraction to cloud storage. It distinguishes itself by covering the entire automation pipeline, not just basic export functionality.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (automating Figma design material extraction) and includes practical guidance on extracting parameters from Figma links. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools, as no sibling tools are provided.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.