Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Penpot MCP Server

Penpot MCP Server

by zcube
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_file

Fetch detailed information about a Penpot design file using its file ID, enabling inspection of file properties and content.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a file

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>"
    },
    "name": "get_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdYesFile ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral context itself, but it only says 'Get detailed information about a file'. It does not state that the operation is read-only (though implied), nor does it mention required permissions, error cases, or the nature of the returned information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence of six words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter and contains no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too vague to be complete. It mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what fields are included, whether file content is returned, or any constraints, especially with sibling tools that also retrieve file-related data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter fileId is described in the schema as 'File ID', and the schema covers 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'detailed information about a file', clearly indicating a read operation for a single file. It doesn't explicitly distinguish among siblings, but 'detailed information' sets it apart from list_files or get_file_libraries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 list_files, get_file_libraries, or get_file_snapshots. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it; the use case is only implied by the name and generic phrasing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools