Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Clone node

figma_clone_node
Idempotent

Duplicate a node with its whole subtree, optionally into another parent and at a new position. A slide is duplicated into a slide row — right after itself, or at the end of the row parentId names — and the result gives its row and…

Instructions

Duplicate a node with its whole subtree, optionally into another parent and at a new position. A slide is duplicated into a slide row — right after itself, or at the end of the row parentId names — and the result gives its row and col. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNoNot for a slide: the deck's grid places it.
yNo
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.
nodeIdYes
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
parentIdNoDefault: the source's parent. For a slide, a SLIDE_ROW.
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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real context beyond them: subtree duplication, slide row placement, the returned row/col, and editor support boundaries. It does not cover permissions or failure modes beyond what force already handles.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the slide-specific caveat following. Every clause carries information, though the slide sentence is syntactically dense enough to require rereading.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious pieces: subtree scope, parent/position behavior, slide row semantics, return of row/col, and editor availability. The unexplained name and y parameters are the only notable gaps.

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 63%, and the description clarifies the tricky cases: x is ignored for slides because the deck grid places them, and parentId takes a SLIDE_ROW for slides. However, name, y, and nodeId remain unexplained in both schema and description, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and scope: duplicate a node with its whole subtree, optionally into another parent or position. That clearly separates it from creation tools like figma_create_instance or manipulation tools like figma_reparent_nodes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It hints at when this applies (slide duplication into a slide row, editor availability in Design vs unverified FigJam/Slides) but never states when to prefer it over figma_reparent_nodes or figma_create_instance. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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