get_dev_resourcesFetch Dev Mode resource links attached to nodes in a Figma file, optionally filtered by node IDs, to access development assets directly.
GET /v1/files/{key}/dev_resources — Dev Mode links on nodes. Scope: file_dev_resources:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Optional node ids to filter. | |
| file | Yes | Figma file key or URL (figma.com/design/... or figma.com/file/...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method and the required scope 'file_dev_resources:read', but it does not disclose behaviors like response shape, pagination, or whether empty results are possible. This is adequate but not rich.
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. It front-loads the endpoint and purpose, then adds the scope in a compact way. 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 two parameters, high schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it returns (Dev Mode links on nodes) and the required scope. It could mention response format, but the lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the resource definition in the description.
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 the parameters file and ids are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, hitting the baseline for high coverage.
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 states the HTTP verb and resource, saying 'GET /v1/files/{key}/dev_resources — Dev Mode links on nodes.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from siblings like create_dev_resources or delete_dev_resource by focusing on the read action for Dev Mode links.
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 implicitly conveys this tool is for retrieving Dev Mode links on nodes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_nodes or get_file_meta. No exclusions or routing guidance is provided, leaving usage somewhat implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.