Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

figma_get_metadata

Retrieve a slim XML tree of Figma nodes (id, name, type, size) by file key or URL, with optional depth and node filtering.

Instructions

Slim XML tree (id, name, type, size) via GET /v1/files/:key/nodes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "figma_get_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoFigma file or node URL.
depthNo
fileKeyNoFigma file key or full URL (figma.com/design/...).
nodeIdsNoNodes to include. If omitted, tries the URL node-id; otherwise uses the root document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. 'GET' signals a non-mutating read operation, and the listed fields disclose the intended return shape. However, it does not clarify the response format, depth behavior, potential errors, or whether any side effects are possible.

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 tight sentence with no filler. The output shape is front-loaded, followed by the endpoint, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry more explanatory weight. It omits depth semantics, node-id vs. URL handling, and enough detail about the returned tree structure, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. In particular, the 'depth' parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the tool description, leaving its semantics ambiguous for an agent.

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 identifies a specific resource (Figma nodes) and a concrete endpoint, with the output fields (id, name, type, size) spelled out. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like figma_get_file by the word 'slim', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The word 'slim' implies lightweight metadata retrieval, but the description does not state when to choose this over figma_get_file, figma_get_design_context, or other siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools