Fetch prototype interaction connections for a specific Figma node to reveal linked screens and visualize user flow paths.
Get prototype interaction connections for a node
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | Node ID to fetch connections from | |
| fileKey | Yes | Figma file key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that the tool fetches connections; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the returned data looks like, whether pagination or limits apply, or how errors are surfaced.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the key subject is stated immediately. It earns its place and is easy to scan.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'connections' means and what shape the result takes. The description is too sparse to fully support an agent in choosing the tool confidently, especially given sibling tools like get_flow_map that could overlap in intent.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema with patterns and descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond 'for a node', but it does not need to compensate for a coverage gap.
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?
The description clearly names a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('prototype interaction connections') scoped to a node. It is not a tautology and is easy to understand, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_flow_map.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the description, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.