get_variable_defsFetches variable definitions and paint styles from a FigCraft document, returning modes, code names, and scopes for design system integration.
The variables and paint styles of the document with their modes, code names and scopes — the Figma MCP shape.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeStyles | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the returned content and format ('modes, code names and scopes', 'the Figma MCP shape'), which helps an agent predict output structure. It stops short of explaining pagination or the effect of the includeStyles toggle.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that names the primary resource first and the format qualifier last. Every phrase carries information with no filler, though the trailing 'the Figma MCP shape' is somewhat jargon-laden and unexplained.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does reasonably well by enumerating modes, code names, and scopes. However, it leaves the single parameter's behavior and the meaning of the 'Figma MCP shape' format unstated, so an agent still has gaps before calling it.
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 0% and includeStyles is undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'paint styles' being returned, which weakly hints at what the toggle controls, but it never explains that includeStyles governs whether styles are included or that it defaults to some value. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate.
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 names the resource precisely — document variables and paint styles with their modes, code names and scopes — so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It is a noun fragment rather than a verb-led statement, but the intent (retrieve variable/style definitions) is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from retrieval siblings like inspect_document, get_metadata, or get_design_context.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The 'Figma compatible' framing implies a context but the description never says when an agent should call this instead of inspect_document or get_design_context. Usage must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.