Retrieve a lightweight outline of a Figma node or page with IDs, names, types, and boxes up to a set depth. Use it to find node IDs for inspection or editing.
Lightweight outline (id, name, type, box) of a node or the current page, up to a given depth. Use to find node ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| nodeId | No | Node id ("1:2" or "1-2") or a Figma URL containing ?node-id= |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shallow/lightweight nature of the response and the depth-bounded traversal, which helps distinguish it from full export tools, but it says nothing about error behavior, large-tree cost, or what happens when nodeId is omitted beyond the implicit 'current page'.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the operation and its output shape, followed by the use case. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return fields, the depth-bounded traversal, and the optional node target. Only minor gaps remain (default depth behavior, error cases), which is adequate for this complexity.
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 coverage is 50%: nodeId is documented in the schema while depth is undescribed there. The description partially compensates by explaining that depth bounds the outline and that the target can be a node or the current page, but it doesn't state the default (3) or maximum (10) semantics.
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?
States a specific operation and its return shape: an outline of a node or the current page containing id, name, type, and box. This clearly separates it from heavyweight siblings like figma_export_json, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.
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?
"Use to find node ids" gives a clear motivation, which is more than nothing, but there is no when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative export tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether a page or node must be selected first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.