Retrieve all comments from a Figma file to facilitate design feedback and collaboration.
Get all comments on a Figma file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_key | Yes | The key of the Figma file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get all comments' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the comments are returned in. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably interacts with an external API.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'all comments' means in practice (e.g., format, structure, limitations), nor does it address authentication requirements or error conditions that would be important for an API interaction tool.
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?
The description mentions 'on a Figma file' which aligns with the single 'file_key' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all comments') and target resource ('on a Figma file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_node' or 'post_comment' that might also involve Figma file interactions, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_comment' or 'reply_to_comment'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for retrieving comments, or any explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.