Local Figma MCP

figma_disconnect

Deletes locally stored OAuth authorization for the Figma connection while retaining downloaded design snapshots, so you can disconnect access without losing saved assets.

Instructions

Delete this tool’s locally stored OAuth authorization. Downloaded design snapshots are retained.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "figma_disconnect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds concrete behavior beyond the annotations: it says exactly what is removed (the locally stored OAuth authorization) and what survives (downloaded design snapshots). That is the key side-effect information an agent needs. It does not mention that subsequent Figma calls will fail until reconnecting, which would have completed the picture.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the destructive action front-loaded and the retention guarantee immediately after it. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter credential tool, and the description covers what is deleted and what is retained, which is the essential scope. The only missing piece is the effect on later tool calls (re-authorization required). That is minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an auth_status sibling.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty, and the description correctly implies that no arguments are needed. Nothing more is required here.

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?

It states a specific verb plus resource: 'Delete this tool's locally stored OAuth authorization.' That is clearly distinguishable from the sibling connect/auth tools. It does not explicitly mention figma_connect as the counterpart, but the disconnect/connect pairing is unambiguous.

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?

It does not say when to disconnect: for example, when revoking access or when the token is invalid. There are no preconditions and no note on what happens to in-flight operations. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the connect sibling.

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