Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_page_structure

Extract the full layer tree of a Figma page, including node types, names, and hierarchy, to understand its structure.

Instructions

Get the full page layer tree with types, names, and hierarchy.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_page_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoMax depth to traverse (default: 3)
pageIdNoPage ID (uses current page if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only intent and describes the returned data, but it does not mention that depth defaults to 3 or that the 'full' tree may be truncated by the depth parameter, which could mislead an agent.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The core purpose and output contents are front-loaded, 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.

Completeness4/5

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 two optional parameters and a schema that documents both, the description is largely sufficient. It states what the tool returns, while the schema covers depth and pageId behavior. The only notable gap is the lack of clarity around what 'full' means given the default depth limit.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including the default for depth and the fallback behavior for pageId. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('full page layer tree'), and explicit output content ('types, names, and hierarchy'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_node_info or get_selection.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for retrieving the overall page structure, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_node_info, find_nodes, or page_overview. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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