Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Penpot MCP Server

Penpot MCP Server

by zcube
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

link_file_to_library

Link a Penpot file to a component library to reuse its components, and receive a recursive list of libraries used by that library.

Instructions

Link a file to a component library to use its components. Returns recursive list of libraries used by that library.

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>",
      "libraryId": "<libraryId>"
    },
    "name": "link_file_to_library"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdYesFile ID to link
libraryIdYesLibrary (file) ID to link to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait by stating 'Returns recursive list of libraries used by that library,' but it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects of the linking operation. This is a clear gap but not completely inadequate.

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 description is two concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the action and purpose, the second provides return behavior. It is well front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, purpose, and return value. It is slightly lacking in usage guidance and side-effect disclosure but is otherwise complete for its simplicity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents fileId and libraryId. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what is in the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Link a file to a component library') with a specific purpose ('to use its components'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unlink_file_from_library and 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for linking files to libraries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context but no comparative guidance.

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