Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Boolean operation

figma_boolean_nodes
Idempotent

Combine shapes into one boolean shape, as Figma's toolbar does: union (merge), subtract (cut the upper shapes out of the BOTTOM one), intersect (keep the overlap), exclude (keep what does not overlap).

Instructions

Combine shapes into one boolean shape, as Figma's toolbar does: union (merge), subtract (cut the upper shapes out of the BOTTOM one), intersect (keep the overlap), exclude (keep what does not overlap). The shapes must share a parent; the result takes the lowest one's place and its id is returned. Builds icons, badges, cut-out shapes and logos. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
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.
nodeIdsYesThe shapes, from any layer order — Figma uses their stacking.
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
operationYes
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe-ish mutation profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: the result inherits the lowest node's position, its id is returned, and editor support is qualified (Design verified; FigJam and Slides unverified). It stops short of saying that the source shapes are consumed by the merge, which is the main behavioral detail an agent still has to infer.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and operation semantics before preconditions, use cases, and compatibility. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 6-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers operation meaning, precondition, resulting node position, returned id, and editor support — enough to invoke correctly. What is missing is the fate of the original nodes and any failure modes beyond the parent requirement, which the schema's force parameter only partially covers.

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 67%, and the description adds semantics the schema itself does not carry — that stacking order, not list order, determines union/subtract outcomes. The remaining undocumented parameters (name, session) are not explained in the description, which is a modest gap rather than a blocker.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('combine shapes into one boolean shape') and then defines all four operations inline, including the non-obvious subtract semantics ('cut the upper shapes out of the BOTTOM one'). An agent can distinguish this from figma_flatten_nodes, figma_group_nodes, and figma_set_mask without opening any 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?

Gives concrete use cases ('icons, badges, cut-out shapes and logos') and a hard precondition ('shapes must share a parent'), plus editor availability. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as flatten or group, which keeps it from a 5, but the usage context is clear enough to select the tool confidently.

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