Retrieve the full properties of the currently selected nodes in Figma.
Get the currently selected nodes with full properties.
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_selection"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get the currently selected nodes with full properties' signals a read-only retrieval and indicates result richness, but it does not disclose return shape, empty-selection behavior, or whether one node or many are returned.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Currently selected' and 'full properties' both carry meaningful scope.
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 zero-parameter, read-only getter, the description is largely complete. It names the input context (current selection) and the expected output (nodes with full properties), though the lack of an output schema leaves return format slightly underspecified.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing to compensate for.
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?
Description states a specific verb (Get) and a clear resource (currently selected nodes) with 'full properties' as scope. It is distinct from nearby getters like get_node_info/get_nodes_info through the 'currently selected' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_node_info, get_nodes_info, get_selection_colors, or related selection tools. The context of needing the current selection is implied only by the name and qualifier, with no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.