Skip to main content
Glama

find_references

Locate every node referencing a given variable on the current page. Identify binding sites for renaming or auditing.

Instructions

Find every node on the current page that references a given variable.

This is the REVERSE of inspect: inspect asks "what does this node bind?", find_references asks "who uses this variable?". Use it when renaming, auditing, or swapping tokens — you need to know all the binding sites before you touch the variable.

Scan scope: currentPage only. Invisible nodes are skipped by default. Node-level bindings (e.g. boundVariables.paddingLeft) and per-paint color bindings (fills[i].boundVariables.color, strokes[i].boundVariables.color) are both returned.

Parameters: variable — VariableID (e.g. "VariableID:1:5"). Required.

Returns: {variable, variableName, variableType, referenceCount, references: [{nodeId, nodeName, nodeType, path}, ...]}

path values look like: "boundVariables.paddingLeft" "fills[0].boundVariables.color" "strokes[2].boundVariables.color"

Examples: find_references({variable: "VariableID:1:5"})

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
variableYesVariableID to look up (e.g. "VariableID:1:5"). Get IDs from list_variables.
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses scan scope (currentPage), behavior (invisible nodes skipped), and types of bindings returned. Lacks explicit read-only hint, but non-destructive nature is clear. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, examples, and minimal redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complete for a single-parameter tool with no output schema; description explains return structure and path examples. No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, description adds example and source hint ('Get IDs from list_variables'), providing value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it finds nodes referencing a variable, with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling 'inspect' by contrasting reverse behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use (renaming, auditing, swapping tokens) and contrasts with inspect. Also specifies scope and default skipping of invisible nodes.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/musepy/genable'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server