Track Figma nodes mutated since a cursor to re-read only what changed instead of the whole document. Pass the prior currentSeq as sinceSeq; the cursor resets on server restart.
Return nodes this bridge mutated since a cursor (re-read only what changed, not the whole doc). Pass prior currentSeq as sinceSeq to page. Cursor resets when the MCP server restarts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sinceSeq | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the cursor is ephemeral and resets when the MCP server restarts, and that only mutated nodes come back, but it omits return shape, ordering, and behavior when the cursor is stale/invalid.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core behavior leads and the paging and reset caveats follow. Efficient.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more weight. It hints that a currentSeq is returned ('Pass prior currentSeq') but never states the actual return contents, leaving the paging loop underspecified.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage on the single sinceSeq parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains that sinceSeq is a prior currentSeq used to page, which helps, but never says where currentSeq originates (presumably the return value), leaving the parameter only partially grounded.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Return nodes this bridge mutated since a cursor') and contrasts itself with a full-document read. An agent can grasp it is an incremental/diff read, though it never names a sibling to disambiguate against.
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?
It gives a paging hint ('Pass prior currentSeq as sinceSeq to page'), which implies you call it after holding a cursor. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.