Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• figma_readA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It states it reads data but does not disclose specific behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The operation parameter's enum descriptions provide some behavioral context per sub-operation, but the main description is insufficient.

  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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loads the action ('READ design data'). Could benefit from bullet points or structure, but remains efficient and readable.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 17 operations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values or output format. The operation enum fills some gaps, but the main description could provide a high-level overview of what to expect.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The main description does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The operation parameter has extensive inline descriptions, but that is part of the schema. The description adds marginal value over structured fields.

  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 reads design data from Figma and lists specific extractable elements (node trees, colors, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_write (write operations) and figma_docs (documentation).

  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 usage context: 'understand an existing design before generating code, or to inspect what's on the canvas.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools cover other cases, making the intent clear.

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

• figma_rulesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the tool as aggregating multiple design elements into a markdown block without side effects, implying read-only. It could add details about authentication or performance, but the behavior is well communicated.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is roughly 80 words, front-loaded with the primary action, then content details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, achieving excellent conciseness.

  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 no output schema, the description fully explains the output format (single markdown block) and contents (tokens, styles, variables, components). It provides complete context for when and why to use the tool, making it self-sufficient for an AI agent.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Input schema has 100% description coverage with a single optional sessionId parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, maintaining baseline.

  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 generates a design system rule sheet aggregating color tokens, typography styles, variables, and component catalog into markdown. It uses specific verb 'generate' and resource, and distinguishes indirectly by mentioning equivalence to official MCP and usage context.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to call: 'once at the start of a design-to-code session' and 're-run when the design system changes.' It also explains what context it provides. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases where sibling tools like figma_read might be more appropriate.

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

• figma_writeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details sandbox restrictions (no require, process, fs, fetch, network), async/await usage, and a wide range of supported operations (create, modify, delete, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool modifies files (though implied), nor does it mention authentication or rate limits, but the transparency is high.

  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 lengthy but well-structured with sections (operations, design tokens, prototyping, etc.) and bullet points. The most critical information (purpose and mandatory figma_docs call) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides extensive context about capabilities, sandboxing, and prerequisites. It covers a wide range of operations. However, it does not explain return values or error handling, but for a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema, such as explaining the use of the 'figma' proxy object, async/await, and the mandatory figma_docs call. This helps agents understand how to use the parameters effectively.

  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 'Execute JavaScript code to CREATE or MODIFY designs in Figma,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (figma_docs, figma_read, etc.) by emphasizing that this tool performs write operations.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description includes an explicit mandatory instruction: 'Call figma_docs BEFORE writing any design code' and explains consequences of skipping that step. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and implies that figma_docs is a prerequisite.

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

• figma_docsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations; description covers tool behavior (returns docs, read-only nature assumed). Missing explicit statement of no side effects, but clear for a documentation tool.

  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?

  Front-loaded with main purpose, structured with bullet-like list. Slightly long but well-organized and clear.

  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?

  Complete for a docs retrieval tool: explains purpose, usage, parameter options, and integrates guidance. No output schema needed.

  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?

  Schema has 100% coverage with enum and description; description adds rich context for each section value, e.g., what 'rules' contains.

  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?

  Clearly states it returns API reference and design rules for figma_write, distinguishes from sibling tools (figma_read, figma_write) by being a documentation tool.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly instructs to call before any figma_write code, advises to call with no args first, then specific sections, and provides context for each section's usage.

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

• figma_statusA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's function (checking connection) and its prerequisite role, with no hidden side effects or ambiguity. No annotations are present, so the description fully bears the transparency burden and meets it.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two short, front-loaded sentences that convey the entire purpose and usage without any wasted words.

  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 has zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple checking function, the description completely informs the agent about when and how to use the tool.

  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?

  The input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description correctly omits any unnecessary parameter information, achieving 100% coverage by default.

  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 explicitly states the tool checks the Figma plugin bridge connection, distinguishing it from sibling tools (read, write, docs, rules) which perform different operations.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides clear guidance: 'Always call this first to confirm the plugin is running before any other tool,' indicating the exact context and order of use.

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