Local Figma MCP

figma_job_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the status of a local background job by job ID, including safe failure details so you can diagnose why an operation failed or confirm completion.

Instructions

Read a local background job, including safe failure details.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "figma_job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns 'safe failure details' and pertains to a local job, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not explain job states, polling behavior, or what the returned failure details include, so it remains only moderately transparent.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the action and the 'safe failure details' qualifier earn their place, and there is no unnecessary wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only status tool with rich annotations, the definition covers the basic action and a useful failure-detail note. However, without an output schema, it does not describe what status values or failure details are returned, and it leaves jobId provenance and polling context unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain what the required jobId is or where the caller should obtain it. The parameter name and UUID format help, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level meaning.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a local background job.' It also adds useful scope with 'local' and mentions failure details. It is clear enough to separate this from asset/design siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as figma_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool, when not to call it, or which sibling to use instead. 'Background job' implies checking a job after it has been started, but the agent must infer that context, including where a jobId comes from.

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