Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figma Bridge MCP

Figma Bridge MCP

by Halil-KAPLAN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

figma_get_node

Retrieve detailed information about a specific node in a Figma document using its node ID.

Instructions

Get detailed info about a specific node by ID

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": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "figma_get_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesNode ID (e.g. "1:2" or "1-2")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get detailed info' without specifying what that entails (e.g., geometry, properties, children), permissions, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. More detail is needed for safe invocation.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks output details (no output schema). Given the complexity of Figma nodes, stating that it returns 'detailed info' is vague. More context about the response (e.g., 'returns node properties, children, geometry') would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents the nodeId parameter with examples. The tool description does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'detailed info about a specific node', and the method 'by ID'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like figma_get_page and figma_get_components.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., figma_get_selection for selected nodes, figma_get_page for all nodes on a page). This omission may lead to suboptimal tool selection.

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