figma-mcp-go

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

The description implies a read-only retrieval ('Get'), but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. This creates a serious safety ambiguity that the description fails to resolve or explain (e.g., whether this clears selection, modifies history, or consumes the selection buffer).

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 filler. The most critical information (action + target) is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no input parameters, the tool has destructive annotations that demand explanation, and no output schema is provided. The description fails to clarify what data structure is returned (node IDs, objects, etc.) or why the operation is marked destructive, leaving critical gaps for safe invocation.

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 contains zero parameters. Per the baseline rules for zero-parameter tools, this earns a score of 4.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currently selected nodes') with clear scope ('in Figma'). The qualifier 'currently selected' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_node or get_nodes_info which likely retrieve by ID or query, though explicit contrast is absent.

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 get_node or scan_nodes_by_types. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open document) or exclusions.

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