Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
figma-slides-mcp

figma-slides-mcp

by luan007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Find Nodes

find_nodes

Find Figma slide nodes by name, type, visibility, and lock state, using AND-combined filters.

Instructions

Search for nodes by name (substring), type, visible, locked. All criteria AND-combined.

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": {
      "criteria": "<criteria>"
    },
    "name": "find_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
criteriaYes
parentIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: substring matching for name and AND-combination of criteria. However, it omits behavior around the parentId parameter (e.g., scoping) and what happens with empty criteria, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the criteria. Every word contributes value; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, this is usable but incomplete. It covers the main criteria but leaves parentId undocumented and does not clarify the return type or default behavior. Given the nested structure and missing annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the criteria fields (substring for name, AND-combination) but completely ignores parentId. Thus it adds partial meaning beyond the schema but misses a key parameter.

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's function: 'Search for nodes' with specific filter criteria (name, type, visible, locked). This is a specific verb+resource that immediately distinguishes it from siblings like get_node_tree or get_selection, which serve different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: you would use this when you need to find nodes by the listed criteria. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., get_node_tree for full hierarchy), so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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