figmad-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (export) and return type (URL), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, whether the URL is temporary or permanent, or error conditions. The description adds basic context but misses key operational aspects for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Export a Figma node as an image') and follows with essential details (formats, return type). Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (export operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return value but omits context like authentication needs, error handling, or format-specific behaviors. For a tool with no structured data support, it should provide more operational guidance to be fully complete.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function and output. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it adds value by explaining what the tool does without redundancy.

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 specific action ('Export a Figma node as an image') and the resource involved ('Figma node'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_node' (which retrieves) or 'update_node' (which modifies). It specifies the output formats (PNG, JPG, SVG, PDF) and the return type (URL), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid node ID), exclusions (e.g., not for text nodes), or comparisons to siblings like 'capture_webpage' (for web content) or 'get_file' (for raw file data). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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