Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_nodes_info

Retrieve detailed properties for multiple Figma nodes by providing their IDs. Streamlines design analysis for efficient workflows.

Instructions

Get detailed properties of multiple nodes.

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": {
      "nodeIds": "<nodeIds>"
    },
    "name": "get_nodes_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdsYesArray of node IDs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that properties are retrieved; it does not mention whether there are limits on nodeIds, how missing or invalid IDs are handled, whether the operation is strictly read-only, or what the response shape is.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and scope efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks useful operational context such as expected return content, batch-size constraints, or behavior for invalid node IDs. The presence of similar sibling tools makes this gap more noticeable.

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?

The schema already fully documents the nodeIds parameter with 100% coverage, including its type and a description. The tool description adds only the notion of 'multiple nodes,' which is consistent but not additive beyond the parameter name and schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('nodes'), and the scope 'multiple', which distinguishes it from the sibling get_node_info. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or clarify the difference beyond the plural form.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_node_info, find_nodes, or get_selection. The 'multiple nodes' phrasing implies batch use, but there is no explicit context or exclusion to help an agent choose correctly.

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