Figma MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Reply to') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't disclose required permissions, whether this is a write operation, rate limits, response format, or error conditions. For a mutation 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 required parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic purpose.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no context on comment_id format beyond schema's '<number>', no examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Reply to') and target resource ('an existing comment in a Figma file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'post_comment' (new comment) and 'read_comments' (viewing), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't specify the verb+resource combination as precisely as it could (e.g., 'post a reply' vs. 'reply to').

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing comment), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'post_comment' for new comments or 'read_comments' for viewing. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an agent to infer context.

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