Skip to main content
Glama
andreycretsu

Cursor Talk to Figma MCP

by andreycretsu

get_local_components

Retrieve all local components from a Figma document to access design elements for automation or integration tasks.

Instructions

Get all local components from the Figma document

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The complete handler function and registration for the 'get_local_components' MCP tool. It calls sendCommandToFigma to delegate the logic to the Figma plugin and formats the response as a text content block with JSON stringified result, handling errors appropriately.
    server.tool(
      "get_local_components",
      "Get all local components from the Figma document",
      {},
      async () => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("get_local_components");
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(result)
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error getting local components: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                  }`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Empty input schema for the get_local_components tool (no parameters required).
    {},
  • TypeScript type definition confirming empty parameters (Record<string, never>) for the get_local_components command in FigmaCommandParams.
    get_local_components: Record<string, never>;
  • The get_local_components command is included in the FigmaCommand type union, confirming its registration in the command handling system.
    | "get_local_components"
    | "create_component_instance"
    | "get_instance_overrides"
    | "set_instance_overrides"
    | "export_node_as_image"
    | "join"
    | "set_corner_radius"
    | "clone_node"
    | "set_text_content"
    | "scan_text_nodes"
    | "set_multiple_text_contents"
    | "get_annotations"
    | "set_annotation"
    | "set_multiple_annotations"
    | "scan_nodes_by_types"
    | "set_layout_mode"
    | "set_padding"
    | "set_axis_align"
    | "set_layout_sizing"
    | "set_item_spacing"
    | "get_reactions"
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 states it 'gets' components, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like whether it returns a list, format, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, as it lacks critical behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what 'local components' entail, the return format, or any limitations. For a read operation with no structured output information, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter information, so it meets the baseline for no parameters. It implies no inputs are required, which aligns with the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all local components from the Figma document'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_info' or 'get_node_info', which might also retrieve document-related information, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for retrieving components vs. other document elements or how it relates to tools like 'get_document_info'. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/andreycretsu/cursor-talk-to-figma-mcp-main'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server