Create a new page in a Figma document and optionally switch to it by setting activate to true.
Create a new page in the document. Pass activate: true to also switch to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| activate | No | Set the new page as the current page. Default false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says creation happens and that activate switches to the new page, but it omits permissions, side effects, default naming behavior, and what happens if name is omitted. It largely repeats the schema description for activate rather than adding behavioral context.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The main action comes first, followed by the only optional behavior mentioned.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 50% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the purpose of name, whether the new page is named by default, or what the tool returns.
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 only 50%: activate is documented in the schema, while name is undocumented in both schema and description. The description repeats the activate behavior already present in the schema and adds no meaning for the name parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new page in the document.' It is clear enough to distinguish from delete_page, rename_page, and reorder_page, but it does not explicitly differentiate from duplicate_page or mention page scope. No sibling alternative is named.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use create_page versus siblings such as duplicate_page, set_current_page, or create_section. It only explains a parameter option for activation, which is not usage guidance for the tool selection itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.