get_metadataRetrieve the layer hierarchy from a FigCraft document or page as {id, name, type, children}; omit nodeId to inspect the current page.
The layer hierarchy in the Figma MCP shape: {id, name, type, children}. Without nodeId the current page is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| nodeId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return structure and the no-nodeId default scope, which is useful, but it says nothing about depth truncation, size limits, or how deeply children nest.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loading the return shape before the scoping caveat. No filler, though the phrase 'in the Figma MCP shape' is slightly jargon-heavy.
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 low-complexity, read-only, two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return contract and the nodeId default. It leaves the depth parameter and any hierarchy-truncation behavior unexplained, which an agent needs to traverse the result correctly.
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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It explains nodeId's default behavior (falls back to current page) but never mentions `depth`, its 0-64 range, or what depth controls in the returned hierarchy.
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 states a concrete verb+resource (retrieves the layer hierarchy) and even specifies the returned shape {id, name, type, children}, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like get_node, inspect_document, or get_design_context, which also expose document structure.
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 only usage-like statement is a scoping default ('Without nodeId the current page is returned'), which is really parameter behavior. There is no guidance on when to call this instead of get_node or inspect_document, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.