Figma MCP Server

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. It states the tool retrieves comments but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata (e.g., timestamps, authors), or handles errors (e.g., invalid file keys). This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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 purpose ('Get all comments on a Figma file') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and no complex behaviors to explain.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and resource but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output details. For a read operation with no structured safety hints, more guidance would improve completeness.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'file_key' parameter is documented as 'The key of the Figma file'), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional details like format examples or constraints.

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 the target resource ('on a Figma file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_comment' or 'reply_to_comment', but the verb 'Get' versus 'post'/'reply' provides some implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid file key), exclusions (e.g., not for filtered comments), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'view_node' (which might show nodes without comments). Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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