Skip to main content
Glama

Figma

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get File

get_file
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a compact summary of a Figma design file by its file key: name, last modified time, version, editor type, role, thumbnail URL, and the list of top-level pages (id, name, type, child count). Use to understand the structure of a Figma design file without fetching the full node tree.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoHow many levels of the document tree to traverse (default 2). Lower values return less data.
file_keyYesThe Figma file key (the segment after /file/ or /design/ in a Figma URL).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "file_key": "abc123xyz"
+  },
+  {
+    "depth": 3,
+    "file_key": "abc123xyz"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the compact nature and returned fields but does not provide additional behavioral insights beyond what annotations convey. Since annotations are strong, the description's contribution is moderate.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first enumerates returned fields efficiently, and the second provides a clear use case. No redundant or extra information is present.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (list of fields) and its intended use (understanding file structure). No additional information is necessary.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description mentions the file key and implicitly relates to depth by mentioning 'compact summary' and 'without fetching full node tree', but it does not explicitly clarify how the depth parameter affects the output or when to adjust it.

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 identifies the tool's action (get a compact summary), specifies the resource (Figma design file by file key), and lists the exact fields returned (name, last modified, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_nodes by noting it avoids fetching the full node tree.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states when to use this tool ('to understand the structure... without fetching the full node tree'), implying it is appropriate for high-level overviews. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives beyond the implicit contrast with full node tree retrieval.

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

All Figma toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and the set mixes Figma-specific tools with a large library of data-lookup tools, making it hard for an agent to distinguish when to use which.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), camelCase (get_me, get_file), and mixed underscores (list_comments). There is no consistent pattern across the tool set.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Figma' but has 36 tools, only 5 of which are Figma-related. The remaining 31 are Pipeworx data tools, indicating a severe scope mismatch and unnecessary bloat for a Figma server.

Completeness1/5

The Figma-specific tools lack essential CRUD operations (e.g., no create, update, or delete for files or nodes). The Pipeworx tools, while extensive, are irrelevant to Figma, so the server is severely incomplete for its stated purpose.

Resources