list_project_filesLists all Figma files in a specified project using project ID or URL. Enables project discovery and file access for design automation.
GET /v1/projects/{project_id}/files — files in a project. Scope: projects:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project id or URL (figma.com/files/project/<id>). | |
| branch_data | No |
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 endpoint and scope, but does not disclose behavior like pagination, response shape, or whether branch_data affects results. With annotations covering the read-only nature, 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?
The description is a single concise sentence with the endpoint and scope. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.
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 list tool with read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, the undocumented 'branch_data' parameter and lack of any mention of pagination or response format leave some gaps. The output schema is absent, so a bit more context on what is returned would help.
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 50%: the 'project' parameter is well described, but 'branch_data' has no description. The description does not explain branch_data's meaning or effect. Since half the parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, the description does not fully compensate for the gap.
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 verb ('list') and resource ('files in a project'), and includes the HTTP endpoint. It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_file_meta or list_projects, though the resource is distinct enough.
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: call this to list files in a project. It does not state when to use it versus alternatives like list_projects or get_file_meta, nor does it mention any exclusions. The scope 'projects:read' hints at required permission but not when to prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.