Figma MCP Server

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. 'Add a Figma file to your context' implies a mutation or storage action, but it doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what 'context' refers to (e.g., workspace, session), whether the action is reversible, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits.

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, straightforward sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words and gets directly to the point. However, it could be more structured by including key details like the tool's scope or constraints, but as-is, it's efficiently concise.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely performs a mutation (adding a file). It doesn't explain what 'context' means, the result of the operation, or any error conditions. For a tool with one parameter but no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented as 'The URL of the Figma file to add'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format requirements or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation effectively.

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 the action ('Add') and resource ('Figma file'), but it's vague about what 'add to your context' means operationally. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'view_node' or 'post_comment', which might involve similar resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the tool's exact function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid Figma URL or authentication, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'view_node' that might also interact with Figma files. The description offers no context for selection among available tools.

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