figcraft-app-mcp

by jimodaoxi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Change the selection

select

Destructive

Sets the active layers in a FigCraft document to the provided layer IDs; an empty array clears the active layers.

Instructions

Replace the selection with the given layer ids (an empty array deselects).

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "select"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it clarifies that the operation replaces the existing selection and that an empty array deselects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the main action and including the critical empty-array nuance. Nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and explicit annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It does not describe return values or selection state afterward, but those are minor gaps here.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that 'ids' are layer ids and that an empty array has the special deselect behavior, which is meaningful beyond the raw array-of-integers schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb-resource pair ('Replace the selection') and clarifies the key input behavior ('given layer ids'). It is clear without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from unrelated siblings like set_properties.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the replacement and empty-array deselect semantics. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related operations, nor any excluded contexts.

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