Skip to main content
Glama
arinspunk

Claude Talk to Figma MCP

by arinspunk

get_styles

Retrieve all design styles from your current Figma document to maintain consistency and accelerate design workflows.

Instructions

Get all styles from the current Figma document

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The complete handler implementation for the 'get_styles' MCP tool. It registers the tool with an empty input schema and executes by sending a 'get_styles' command to the Figma plugin via sendCommandToFigma, returning the result as a text/JSON content block or an error message.
    // Get Styles Tool
    server.tool(
      "get_styles",
      "Get all styles from the current Figma document",
      {},
      async () => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("get_styles");
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(result)
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error getting styles: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Higher-level registration where document tools (including get_styles) are registered to the MCP server via registerDocumentTools.
    export function registerTools(server: McpServer): void {
      // Register all tool categories
      registerDocumentTools(server);
      registerCreationTools(server);
      registerModificationTools(server);
      registerTextTools(server);
      registerComponentTools(server);
    }
  • Top-level server initialization where all tools are registered by calling registerTools.
    registerTools(server);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get all styles') but does not describe traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be (e.g., a list of style objects). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all styles') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain the return values (e.g., style types, format) or behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, potential errors), which could help the agent use it correctly. However, for a basic retrieval tool, it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not add parameter information, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, as there are no parameters to document beyond what the schema already indicates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all styles from the current Figma document'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_local_components' or 'get_remote_components', which also retrieve design assets but focus on components rather than styles.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document), comparison to siblings (e.g., 'get_local_components' for components instead of styles), or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying styles). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/arinspunk/claude-talk-to-figma-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server