Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mimic AI

Mimic AI

by miapre
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

figma_validate_ds_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates a Figma node against the design system profile, detecting hardcoded styles, missing variable bindings, and DS violations to ensure compliance before generating a report.

Instructions

Recursively checks a node (and its children) against the current DS enforcement profile — flags hardcoded colors/fonts instead of variables/styles, missing text style bindings, and other DS violations. Use during Phase 3/4 QA, especially at the 20-op build checkpoint, before generating the report. Params: nodeId (required, typically the artboard root).

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": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "figma_validate_ds_compliance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe Figma node ID to validate.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryNo
violationsNoPer-node compliance violations found.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / nodeId / description
      Previous value: -"Root node ID to validate (typically the artboard)."New value: +"The Figma node ID to validate."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "summary": {
+      "properties": {
+        "compliant": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "totalNodes": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "violations": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "violations": {
+      "description": "Per-node compliance violations found.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the recursion, the types of violations checked (hardcoded colors/fonts, missing text style bindings), and that it runs against the current DS enforcement profile. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second gives usage timing and parameter hint. No wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a compliance validation tool with an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with nodeId description. The description adds context: 'nodeId (required, typically the artboard root),' which aids correct parameter usage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it recursively checks a node and children against DS enforcement profile, flagging specific violations (hardcoded colors/fonts, missing text style bindings). It distinguishes itself from siblings like figma_inspect or figma_list_ds by focusing on compliance validation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear guidance on when to use: 'during Phase 3/4 QA, especially at the 20-op build checkpoint, before generating the report.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools