@echobt/figma-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_layout_info

Get layout and spacing information from a Figma node, returning inferred flexbox properties such as direction, gap, padding, and alignment.

Instructions

Get layout and spacing information for a node. Returns inferred flexbox-like properties including direction, gap, padding, and alignment.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "nodePath": "<nodePath>"
    },
    "name": "get_layout_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filePath`	Yes	Path to the .fig file
`nodePath`	Yes	Path to the node

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns inferred properties, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), authentication needs, or error behavior. The description is adequate but leaves minor gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, and contains no superfluous text. Every word adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete, listing the specific properties returned. However, it could briefly note expected return format or error conditions for completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves layout and spacing information for a node and specifies the kind of properties returned (flexbox-like: direction, gap, padding, alignment). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_node_details or get_text_content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when needing layout properties, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings (e.g., get_node_details) or any prerequisites (e.g., the node must exist). No when-not guidance is provided.

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