figma-mcp-server

identify_components

Identify UI components in a Figma design, including charts, tables, and forms, using a Figma file URL.

Instructions

Identify UI components in a Figma design (charts, tables, forms, etc.)

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": {
      "figmaUrl": "<figmaUrl>"
    },
    "name": "identify_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nodeId`	No	Node ID (optional if URL contains node-id)
`figmaUrl`	Yes	Figma file URL (any format)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 lacks any mention of whether the tool is read-only, what the output format looks like, authentication requirements, or side effects. The purpose is stated but not the operational behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description need not be elaborate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether it's risk-free) and does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools, making it minimally complete but not rich.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor degrades semantic clarity.

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 uses a specific action ('Identify') with a clear resource ('UI components in a Figma design') and provides examples ('charts, tables, forms, etc.'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_details or extract_styles.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies the tool's use case: when you need to identify UI component types in a Figma design. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

Deploy Server