figma-mcp

get_metadata

Retrieve metadata for a specific Figma node by providing its file key and node ID. Use this to access essential node details directly.

Instructions

Get metadata for a Figma node

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_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nodeId`	Yes	Node ID
`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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state what metadata is returned, whether authentication is required, or any limits or side effects. This leaves the behavior largely unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it omits useful contextual and behavioral information that would make it more helpful.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify what metadata is included, what form the result takes, or how this tool fits with its siblings. While the two required parameters are well documented, the tool's purpose and behavior are described too vaguely to be considered complete.

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 already describes both parameters well, with patterns and descriptions for nodeId and fileKey, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about how the parameters relate to the metadata call, but because the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a clear action ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a Figma node'), so an agent can tell what operation is being performed. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like get_design_context or get_section_frames, since 'metadata' is not scoped precisely enough to distinguish it.

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?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_design_context or get_variable_defs. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so the agent must infer appropriate usage from the 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