figma-mcp

get_flow_map

Retrieve a complete map of prototype flows from a Figma file or section. Provide the file key and root node to trace all connections and screens.

Instructions

Get a map of prototype flows within a file or section

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": {
      "fileKey": "<fileKey>",
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "get_flow_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nodeId`	Yes	Root node ID for flow traversal
`fileKey`	Yes	Figma file key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.7Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that this is a retrieval operation returning a 'map of prototype flows', but it does not describe the return structure, traversal depth, pagination, or any other behavioral traits.

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 or redundancy. It communicates the core purpose immediately and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain what the returned map actually contains, how nodeId scopes the traversal, or how this tool differs from get_prototype_connections, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 describes both parameters ('Figma file key' and 'Root node ID for flow traversal'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'within a file or section' vaguely maps to fileKey and nodeId but adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('map of prototype flows'), scoped to 'a file or section', which aligns with the two required parameters. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_prototype_connections, which could overlap in purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_prototype_connections or get_section_frames. The description gives no context, exclusions, or routing hints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server