Local Figma MCP

figma_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read local Figma authentication and cached design inventory to verify access and available design data.

Instructions

Read local authentication and cached design inventory.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description does add the meaningful qualifier "local" and "cached," implying no live Figma API call and possibly stale inventory, which is context the annotations do not convey. It stops short of saying how fresh the cache is or what happens if no local auth exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler. It is reasonably front-loaded with the action, though packing two resources into one clause makes it slightly less crisp than it could be.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about what this tool returns, and it says only "authentication and cached design inventory" without naming any fields or shape. Given the dense cluster of sibling tools around auth and inventory, it should clarify both the return contents and its relationship to figma_auth_status.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden; the empty schema is self-explanatory. The description correctly implies the tool is argument-free by framing it as a simple read.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names two resources (local authentication state and cached design inventory) with the verb "Read," so the general purpose is inferable. However, it conflates what looks like two distinct concerns, and the sibling tool figma_auth_status appears to cover the authentication half specifically — nothing here explains how figma_status differs from that sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell whether this should be called to check readiness before other figma_* tools, or whether figma_auth_status should be used instead for the auth half.

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