Retrieves the content tree of a specific Figma slide, including all text, shapes, frames, and node hierarchy properties, so you can inspect slide structure and contents.
Get the content tree of a specific slide including all text, shapes, and frames. Returns node hierarchy with properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slideId | Yes | The node ID of the slide, e.g. '1:23' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.46.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully says the tool returns a node hierarchy with properties and enumerates included content types (text, shapes, frames), but it does not disclose permissions, pagination/depth limits, or whether hidden layers are included.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return shape. Every sentence adds relevant information with no filler.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what slide content is returned and that the result is a node hierarchy. It leaves some gaps around depth and error behavior, but the schema covers the only parameter.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single slideId parameter is documented in the schema with an example format ('1:23'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: get the content tree of a specific slide, including text, shapes, and frames. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as figma_get_slide_grid, figma_get_slide_transition, or figma_get_focused_slide.
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 implies it should be used when slide content is needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. With many sibling tools related to slides, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over figma_get_focused_slide or figma_list_slides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.