get_styleRetrieve metadata for a published Figma style by its library key, enabling design token lookup for variables, colors, and text styles in automation workflows.
GET /v1/styles/{key} — metadata for a published style key (library key, not a file key). Scope: library_assets:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Published style key from library metadata. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope requirement and the library-key clarification, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation, and for a read-only tool, this is adequate.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and purpose, then adds the key-type clarification and scope. There is no wasted text, and all information is immediately relevant to correct invocation.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, the key type, and the required scope. It does not describe error handling or the exact metadata fields returned, but that is not critical for successful invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description is present, but the tool description adds the critical nuance that the key is a library key, not a file key, which the schema alone does not convey. This extra semantic meaning justifies a score above the baseline of 3.
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 HTTP GET endpoint, specifies that it returns metadata for a published style key, and explicitly distinguishes that the key is a library key, not a file key. This precise scope separates it from sibling tools like get_file_styles and get_component, and it uses a specific verb+resource pattern.
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 provides the required scope (library_assets:read) and clarifies the key type, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool over get_file_styles or other style-related siblings, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.