Retrieve all local variable collections defined in the current Figma file to inspect design tokens and organize variable sets. Use it to audit or reference collections without manual searching.
List local variable collections in the current file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It does disclose a real behavioral constraint (only local collections, only the current file), but it says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether collections outside the current file are excluded by scope or excluded from results.
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 tight sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded. No waste, nothing to trim.
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 is the only place the return value could be characterized, and it doesn't say what a listed collection contains (name, id, modes). For a trivial zero-param read this is survivable but leaves a small gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema shows. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.
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 (List) plus resource (variable collections) and adds a useful scope qualifier ('local', 'current file'). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling list_variables, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With siblings like list_variables, get_variable, and create_variable_collection, the agent is left to infer that this reads collection-level metadata rather than the variables themselves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.