List local Figma variable collections, tokens with mode values, and text styles, optionally filtered by name prefix, to inspect a file's design system.
List local variable collections, tokens with mode values and text styles, optionally filtered by name prefix. Does not read remote libraries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| prefix | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully confirms the closed scope ('does not read remote libraries'), but says nothing about pagination behavior or the shape of the returned listing despite a limit parameter existing.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed followed by the scope caveat. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.
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 simple read-only listing tool whose annotations cover safety, the description gives the enumerated return contents and the filtering/scoping rules. The only real gap is the unmentioned limit parameter and pagination behavior, which is minor.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'prefix' filter semantics ('filtered by name prefix') but is silent on 'limit' (default 200, max 500), leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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) and concrete resources (local variable collections, tokens with mode values, text styles), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also scopes itself ('local', 'does not read remote libraries'), though it never names a sibling tool to differentiate 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?
Usage is only implied: 'optionally filtered by name prefix' suggests a lookup scenario, and the remote-library exclusion hints at a boundary. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the get_*/find_nodes siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.