Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• figma_healthA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the two conditions it checks, which is transparent about its scope. However, it does not mention side effects (though 'check' implies none), return format, error behavior, or what happens if connectivity fails. For a zero-parameter read-only health check, this is adequate but not rich.

  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 clear sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb 'Check' and the object, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  The tool is simple (zero params, no output schema), so the description covers the main function. However, it does not explain the return value or status format, which the agent might need to interpret the health check result. Given the lack of an output schema, a brief note on the response would improve completeness.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than inputs.

  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 the tool's function: checking whether the local Figma bridge is up and whether the Development plugin is connected. The verb 'Check' plus the specific resources (bridge, plugin) makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like figma_exec (execution) and figma_selection_info (selection details).

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be run before other Figma tools to verify connectivity, nor does it reference sibling tools or any exclusion scenarios. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name 'figma_health', not stated.

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

• figma_selection_infoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Summarize' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it requires authentication, or how it handles empty selections. This leaves some ambiguity.

  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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the core function and the data returned. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

  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?

  For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential details about what is summarized and the attributes included. It could clarify the exact return structure or edge-case behavior, but it is otherwise adequate.

  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 has zero parameters, so the description's mention of the current page and selection is sufficient context. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

  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 the tool summarizes the current page and selection, listing the specific attributes (id/name/type/bounds). This distinguishes it from siblings like figma_health (health checks) and figma_exec (execution).

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for retrieving selection information, but it does not name alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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

• figma_execA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the execution context (main thread, global figma API), async support, JSON serialization of return values, and warns against returning live node proxies. This is valuable behavioral context beyond just 'execute code', though it omits error handling or timeout behavior.

  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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then providing essential details, warnings, and an illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

  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?

  For a generic code execution tool, the description covers the essential aspects: execution environment, API access, async body, return serialization, and data handling guidance. It lacks explicit error handling or side-effect caveats, but these are not critical for a straightforward exec tool, and the example makes it actionable.

  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 schema covers the single 'code' parameter with a description, and the tool description adds more: async body, JSON-serializable return, and an example. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate despite high schema coverage.

  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 the tool's function: 'Execute JavaScript inside the running Figma plugin main thread.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the analogy to ae_exec/cocosmcp_exec differentiates it from the sibling tools (figma_health, figma_selection_info), which are specialized for health checks and selection info.

  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?

  The description makes the usage context clear: it's for running arbitrary JavaScript with access to the Figma plugin API. It implies this tool is for custom logic beyond the simpler sibling tools, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives directly. The example with selection shows a typical use case.

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