Fetch specific Figma nodes by ID via REST API without loading the entire file, using a file key and node IDs to retrieve targeted design data.
Fetch specific nodes by ID directly from the cloud via REST API without loading the entire document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Depth limit for child nodes (default: 2) | |
| fileKey | Yes | Figma file key | |
| nodeIds | Yes | Array of node IDs to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the REST API method and the efficiency benefit, but omits any side effects, error handling, authentication requirements, or response format. For a fetch operation, the agent needs to know what happens on missing IDs or depth limits, but none of that is disclosed.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and its benefit. It contains zero filler and directly conveys the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential function but leaves out details such as the effect of the 'depth' parameter and the structure of the response. It is minimally viable but not enriched with the nuance needed for an agent to anticipate behavior under edge cases.
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?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (fileKey, nodeIds, depth), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond referring to 'by ID', which is already covered by the nodeIds description. 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 opens with the specific verb 'Fetch', names the resource 'specific nodes by ID', and adds the key differentiator 'without loading the entire document'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rest_get_file (whole file) and find_nodes (search). The purpose is unmistakable.
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 implies usage when you know node IDs and want to avoid a full document load, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative. Sibling tools like rest_get_file exist, yet no comparison is made. Guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.