Retrieve a Figma file's structure and metadata—pages, frames, and component count—to inspect design files.
Get a Figma file's structure and metadata - pages, frames, and component count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | How deep to traverse the node tree (default: full) | |
| file_key | Yes | Alphanumeric file ID from the Figma URL | |
| personal_access_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "personal_access_token",
- "file_key"
-]New value: +[
+ "file_key"
+]v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds useful content scope (pages, frames, component count) but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or depth traversal behavior beyond what annotations and schema imply.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose and the main returned artifacts are stated efficiently.
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?
With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value and auth burden. It gives a useful high-level return summary (pages, frames, component count), but it omits credential requirements and does not clarify how depth affects the returned structure.
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?
The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is only 67%, and the undocumented personal_access_token parameter is left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, so the definition does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: it retrieves a Figma file's structure and metadata, and it enumerates what is included (pages, frames, component count). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby Figma tools such as figma_get_node or figma_get_components, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.
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 description states what the tool does but provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer from the purpose alone whether to choose this over figma_get_node or figma_get_components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.