Skip to main content
Glama

Combine as variants

figma_combine_as_variants
Idempotent

Combine Figma components into one variant set, using Property=Value names to define variant properties and layout rows or property grids.

Instructions

Combine components into one component set (variants), like Figma's Combine as variants. Name each component "Property=Value, Other=Value" first (figma_rename_node) — Figma derives the variant properties from those names. The components must share a parent; the set is laid out as a wrapping row unless arrange: false. columns: "State" lays it out as a grid instead — a column per State value, a row per combination of the other properties — and returns the grid's page coordinates, for header labels made with figma_create_text outside the set. Then place variants with figma_create_instance and switch them with figma_set_instance_properties. Editors: Design; unverified: Slides.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gapNoSpace between variants, px. Default 24.
nameNoThe set's name, e.g. "Button".
arrangeNoLay the variants out in a wrapping row. Default true.
columnsNoA variant property every component names, e.g. "State": one grid column per value.
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
descriptionNoWhat the set is for — shown in the assets panel and Dev Mode.
componentIdsYes
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. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=true. The description adds real context beyond them: the naming convention Figma uses to derive properties, the shared-parent constraint, default wrapping-row layout, and that the grid mode returns page coordinates for external header labels.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, layout behavior, follow-on workflow, and editor support in a tight sequence. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; the editor-support tail is the only marginal line.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, layout modes, and the notable return value (grid coordinates). It stops short of describing error/rollback behavior, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 already 88%. The description still adds meaning for the non-obvious parameters, clarifying what `arrange: false` does and how `columns: "State"` produces columns per value and rows per combination, plus the returned grid coordinates — details the schema comments only summarize.

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 components into one component set (variants)' — and anchors it to the Figma feature of the same name. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like figma_convert_to_component and figma_group_nodes.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Spells out prerequisites (name each component 'Property=Value' via figma_rename_node first, components must share a parent) and the follow-on workflow (figma_create_instance to place, figma_set_instance_properties to switch), naming the sibling tools explicitly. It also flags editor support (Design; unverified Slides).

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