Creates a local Figma variable collection, renaming the default mode to modes[0] and adding any remaining modes for design token sets.
Create a local variable collection. The default mode is renamed to modes[0]; remaining modes are added (multiple modes may require a paid Figma plan).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Collection name | |
| modes | No | Optional mode names, e.g. ["Light", "Dark"] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful behaviors: the default mode is renamed to modes[0] and the rest are appended, plus a paid-plan caveat for multiple modes. It omits permissions, reversibility, and return value (e.g., the new collection's id), which an agent would want before chaining calls.
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?
Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the mode-index behavior following immediately. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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?
For a small two-parameter creation tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description conveys the key behavioral nuance (mode handling and the plan constraint). It stops short of stating where the collection is created or what identifier is returned, but otherwise it is sufficient to call correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the semantics of the modes array: index 0 overwrites the default mode while later entries are added. That is real meaning the schema's one-line description does not convey.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a local variable collection') that is immediately distinguishable from sibling create_variable or delete_variable_collection. It does not explicitly position itself relative to those siblings, but the resource noun is unambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing file/page context), and no mention of alternatives such as create_variable for populating the collection afterward. The only conditional note concerns paid plans, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.