get_file_nodesGet specific nodes from a Figma design file by their node ids. Returns a compact map of node id to { name, type }. Use to inspect particular frames, components, or layers within a design file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_key | Yes | The Figma file key (the segment after /file/ or /design/ in a Figma URL). | |
| node_ids | Yes | Comma-separated list of node ids to retrieve (e.g. "1:2,1:3"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "file_key": "abc123xyz",
+ "node_ids": "1:2,1:3"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return format detail but no additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. The description adds some value but is not heavily burdened due to rich annotations.
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 sentences: first states action, second specifies return format and typical usage. Every word earns its place; no wasted content. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 simplicity, good annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return format, and usage. No output schema exists, but the description outlines the return structure. Complete enough for effective use.
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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what's in schema; it simply reiterates 'by their node ids'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool retrieves specific nodes from a Figma design file by ID, and specifies the return format (compact map of id to name/type). It distinguishes from siblings like get_file (whole file) or get_file_images.
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 advises using the tool to 'inspect particular frames, components, or layers,' implying use cases. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with siblings, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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 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.
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.
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.