figcraft-app-mcp

by jimodaoxi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Open a file

open_file

Destructive

Loads a design or image file into FigCraft and returns its summary and document outline for inspection.

Instructions

Open a .figcraft, .json (FigCraft or REST API file JSON), .fig, .svg or image file in the app. Returns the file summary and the document outline.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "open_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`variables`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so opening a file evidently discards or overwrites current state — but the description calls it a benign 'open' and discloses no such consequence (unsaved changes, document replacement). It adds only the return payload (file summary + document outline), leaving the most important behavioral trait unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded and the return payload appended. No padding; the format enumeration is dense but earns its space.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, and the description omits the destructive side effect that the annotations flag. Stating the return shape is a positive, but an agent still lacks what it needs to call this safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description explains neither parameter. The format list loosely hints at what 'path' may point to, but 'variables' (a string-or-object anyOf) is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Open a ... file in the app', with an explicit enumeration of accepted formats (.figcraft, .json, .fig, .svg, image). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like save_file or create_node, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no statement of what happens to the currently open document. The agent must infer whether this replaces state, requires an existing session, or is safe to call mid-workflow.

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