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

figma-slides-mcp

by luan007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Get Node Tree

get_node_tree

Retrieve the structural hierarchy of Figma slides, including node IDs, types, names, and bounding boxes. Set depth to control recursion and nodeId to start from a specific node.

Instructions

Get structural tree: IDs, types, names, bounds. Use depth to limit recursion.

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": "get_node_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoMax depth. null = unlimited.
nodeIdNoRoot node. Default: current page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

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 burden. It discloses recursive traversal behavior via the depth parameter and lists return fields, but lacks details about error behavior, ordering, or whether the root node is included.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant content. Every word contributes meaning, making it an efficient and appropriately sized description.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description sufficiently explains the output fields and parameter semantics. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about tree nesting could help but is not critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by linking depth to recursion, but this largely duplicates the schema's 'Max depth' explanation.

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 verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as the structural tree, listing the included data (IDs, types, names, bounds). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_properties or find_nodes.

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 when needing the full hierarchy, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. The only hint, 'Use depth to limit recursion,' addresses the depth parameter rather than tool selection.

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