Search Figma page nodes by name keyword or type to locate specific elements for editing or inspection.
Search for nodes on the current page by name keyword or node type (FRAME, TEXT, RECTANGLE, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Node type filter (e.g., 'FRAME', 'TEXT', 'COMPONENT') | |
| limit | No | Max number of matches to return (defaults to 50) | |
| query | No | Name substring to search for (case-insensitive) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Search' implies a non-destructive read operation and the description adds the useful 'current page' scope. It does not disclose return shape, pagination, or ordering, but those are not critical for a simple search tool.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the tool's essence, scope, and filtering criteria in under 20 words, which is ideal for a simple search tool.
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 low-complexity tool with no required parameters and fully documented inputs, the description is adequate. It clearly identifies the search scope and criteria, though it could mention the limit default explicitly even though the schema already does.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that query maps to the name keyword and type maps to the node type filter, but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. 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 states a specific action ('Search for nodes on the current page') and specifies the two filtering dimensions: name keyword and node type. It is clear and technically distinct from siblings like get_selection or inspect_node, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.
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?
Usage context is implied by the purpose: an agent would use this when it needs to locate nodes by name or type on the current page. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools like inspect_node, get_design_context, or generate_ui_tree.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.