Select up to 50 Figma nodes in a target document and zoom the viewport to them. Optionally choose a page first to inspect or edit the intended layers.
Select nodes and zoom the Figma viewport to them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | No | Page ID to select before running. | |
| nodeIds | Yes | ||
| targetDocumentId | Yes | documentId returned by figma_document; protects against editing a different file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, so an agent knows something is being mutated; the description clarifies that the mutation is selection/viewport state plus zoom. It does not say whether document content is untouched, whether the selection persists, or that nodeIds is capped at 50, all of which matter for a non-readOnly call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action and effect stated immediately and zero filler. It is perhaps too terse for what it omits, but nothing in the text is wasted.
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?
No output schema and thin annotations on a three-parameter tool: the definition should explain the targetDocumentId safety check's role in the workflow, the page-then-node ordering, and the batch limit. As written, an agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to call it correctly on the first try.
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?
Schema coverage is 67%, below the threshold where the schema carries the full burden, yet the description says nothing about any parameter. nodeIds has no schema description at all, and the 50-node cap and the pageId-before-selection sequencing are left entirely to the schema's structural keywords.
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?
Specific verb pair (select + zoom) applied to concrete resources (nodes, viewport), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like figma_update_nodes and figma_export_node. It does not explicitly differentiate from figma_document or figma_status, which an agent might confuse it with when only navigation is needed.
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?
No guidance on when to call this instead of figma_document or figma_export_node, and no mention of the prerequisite page-switching flow implied by the pageId parameter. The agent must infer that this is the 'navigate the user's view' tool rather than a data-fetching tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.