Skip to main content
Glama
dannykeane

figmanage

by dannykeane
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

setup_save_pat

Validates and saves a user-supplied Figma PAT, rejecting tokens belonging to a different saved browser account. Prefer local figmanage login to keep tokens out of chat.

Instructions

Validate and save a PAT already supplied by the user. Prefer local figmanage login --pat-only to keep tokens out of chat. Rejects a PAT belonging to a different saved browser account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patYesFigma Personal Access Token

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
resultNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / pat / description
      Previous value: -"Figma Personal Access Token (starts with figd_)"New value: +"Figma Personal Access Token"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "message"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "result": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description's 'save' action. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it validates the PAT, saves it, and rejects mismatched accounts. This provides useful operational details that an agent needs to know.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides an important security-relevant alternative and a rejection condition. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose, usage guidance, and a behavioral constraint. It doesn't explain the output format (covered by the output schema) or prerequisites like having a saved browser account, but those are either implicit or handled elsewhere. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter 'pat' with a clear description ('Figma Personal Access Token'). The description adds minimal extra meaning—only that it is 'already supplied by the user,' which is more about usage context than parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Validate and save a PAT already supplied by the user.' It specifies the resource (PAT) and includes a rejection condition ('Rejects a PAT belonging to a different saved browser account'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like setup_status or setup_select_account.

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 explicitly advises an alternative method: 'Prefer local figmanage login --pat-only to keep tokens out of chat.' This gives a clear when-not-to-use instruction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools (setup_status, setup_extract_cookies, setup_select_account), but those are not competing alternatives for saving a PAT, so the guidance is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools