figma-mcp-go

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

The description claims this is a 'Get' operation implying read-only behavior, but the annotations specify readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a serious contradiction—the description suggests a safe retrieval while annotations warn of destructive side effects.

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 no redundant words. It immediately states the operation and scope without filler content.

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?

While the description covers the basic operation, the contradiction with annotations creates ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior. Without an output schema, it also omits what format the components are returned in (e.g., IDs, names, full objects).

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. With no parameters to document, the baseline score applies as per rubric guidelines for 0-param tools.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('components'), and specifies scope ('defined in the current Figma file') which distinguishes local components from library components. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling retrieval tools like get_styles or get_nodes_info.

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., requiring an open file) or when to prefer this over get_node for specific component lookups.

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