Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Batch rename

figma_batch_rename_nodes
Idempotent

Bulk rename by find/replace over names. Scope, optional type filter, optional regex. Useful for turning Frame 12 into Card / 12. Returns per-item results: items: [{ id, ok, error? }] — one node failing does not fail the call.

Instructions

Bulk rename by find/replace over names. Scope, optional type filter, optional regex. Useful for turning Frame 12 into Card / 12. Returns per-item results: items: [{ id, ok, error? }] — one node failing does not fail the call. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoOverwrite on purpose. A write to a node someone changed after you last read it is refused (STALE); read it again and resend instead. Pass true only when the person said to overwrite their edit.
regexNoDefault false.
scopeNoDefault "page".
typesNoOnly these node types, e.g. ["FRAME"].
nodeIdNoSubtree root when scope is "subtree".
patternYesText to find in names (or a regex when `regex: true`).
replaceYes
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
idempotencyKeyNoCaller-owned retry key, ≤128 chars. Re-calling with the same key never executes twice: it returns the existing result, or waits for the op still in flight. Supply your own for anything large — if the MCP client times out (rather than the bridge), only a key you chose can be used to retry safely.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / force
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Overwrite on purpose. A write to a node someone changed after you last read it is refused (STALE); read it again and resend instead. Pass true only when the person said to overwrite their edit.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the partial-failure contract ('one node failing does not fail the call') and the exact return shape, plus editor support (Design verified; FigJam/Slides unverified). These are behavioral facts the schema and annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three compact sentences: operation, scope controls, return contract, then platform caveat. The core verb leads and every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description still supplies the result envelope and partial-failure semantics, and the schema covers the remaining parameter detail. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents scope, regex, types, force and idempotencyKey in detail. The description only restates scope/filter/regex at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Bulk rename by find/replace over names') plus its scope controls, and the word 'Bulk' implicitly separates it from the single-node sibling figma_rename_node. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete motivating use case ('turning `Frame 12` into `Card / 12`') and makes clear this is for many nodes rather than one. It does not explicitly name figma_rename_node or figma_find_replace_text as the alternatives for single-node or text-content renaming, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools