Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
figma-free-mcp

figma-free-mcp

by haju-xp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

audit_design_consistency

Audit a Figma file to detect and report design system policy violations. Identify inconsistencies and ensure compliance with design guidelines.

Instructions

Audit a Figma file for design system policy violations

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "audit_design_consistency"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageIdNo감사할 페이지 ID. 미지정 시 현재 페이지

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.13

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the purpose without mentioning whether the tool is read-only, what output it returns, what constitutes a violation, or any side effects.

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?

A single, succinct sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is too brief, omitting essential details that should be present.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, the description should explain the return value and audit process. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a descriptive param comment. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 action (audit), resource (Figma file), and scope (design system policy violations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like apply_design_system and compare_design_tokens.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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