Skip to main content
Glama
andreycretsu

Cursor Talk to Figma MCP

by andreycretsu

get_selection

Retrieve details about currently selected elements in Figma to enable automated design workflows through natural language commands.

Instructions

Get information about the current selection in Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the MCP tool 'get_selection' with inline handler function. The handler proxies the request to the Figma plugin by calling sendCommandToFigma('get_selection'), formats the result as text content, and handles errors.
    server.tool(
      "get_selection",
      "Get information about the current selection in Figma",
      {},
      async () => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("get_selection");
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(result)
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error getting selection: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                  }`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it returns structured data, what happens if no selection exists (error vs. empty result), or if it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for concise tool descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate as a basic overview. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what information is returned about the selection) and behavioral context (e.g., error handling), which could help an agent use it more effectively. For a read operation in a design tool context, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, where the description needn't compensate for schema gaps.

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 action ('Get information') and target resource ('current selection in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'get_node_info' or 'get_nodes_info', which also retrieve information about Figma elements, so it doesn't fully differentiate its specific scope.

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 specify if this is for real-time selection updates, how it differs from 'get_node_info' (which might require node IDs), or any prerequisites like needing an active selection in Figma. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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