Retrieves the main component details—ID, name, variant, and component set—for one or more Figma INSTANCE nodes directly via the plugin, without REST API calls.
Return the main component (id, name, variant name and component set) of one or more INSTANCE nodes, read directly in the plugin (no REST API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | No | ID of a single instance | |
| nodeIds | No | IDs of multiple instances |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation and 'read directly in the plugin (no REST API)' adds a genuine behavioral note about how the data is fetched. However, it says nothing about what happens for non-instance inputs or failure behavior, so it only partially covers the gap.
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 no filler; the parenthetical cleanly lists return fields and the delivery mechanism. Slightly dense but nothing wasteful.
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 usefully enumerates return values, which is the main thing an agent needs. But both parameters are optional with no stated relationship or default behavior, and no error/edge-case handling is described, leaving a meaningful gap for a 2-param lookup tool.
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%, so nodeId and nodeIds are already documented in the schema. The description corroborates by noting 'one or more INSTANCE nodes', but adds no new semantics such as mutual exclusivity between the two optional params. 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 (Return) and resource (main component of INSTANCE nodes) and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, variant name, component set). It does not explicitly contrast with near siblings like get_local_components or get_instance_overrides, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.
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 scope ('INSTANCE nodes') implies when the tool applies, and the one-or-more framing hints at batch use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.