Inspect Figma node properties—geometry, paint, effects, components, and text—and get them as structured YAML for design analysis.
Inspect node geometry, paint, effects, component and text facts as YAML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | Figma node id ("1:2"), URL form ("1-2"), or a full Figma URL. | |
| fileKey | No | Target connected file: bare key or Figma URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output as YAML and enumerating the fact categories covered. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits details about failure modes or file resolution.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the output format, earning full credit for conciseness.
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 simple read-only inspection tool, the description is adequate: it names the output format, the fact categories, and the schema documents parameters. There is no output schema, but the description partially compensates by indicating YAML results. It could specify exact response structure or edge-case behavior, but these are minor gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both nodeId and fileKey are already well documented. The description adds selection context through 'node facts' but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('node geometry, paint, effects, component and text facts') and an explicit output format ('as YAML'). This makes it readily distinguishable from visual siblings like figma_render or figma_screenshot, even without naming them.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs structured node facts rather than rendered output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.