Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create effect style

figma_create_effect_style
Idempotent

A local effect style (shadows, blurs) that nodes can then follow via figma_apply_style_to_node. Same effect entries as figma_set_effects. Change it later in place with figma_update_style. Editors: Design only.

Instructions

A local effect style (shadows, blurs) that nodes can then follow via figma_apply_style_to_node. Same effect entries as figma_set_effects. Change it later in place with figma_update_style. Editors: Design only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
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.
effectsYes
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
descriptionNoWhat the style is for — shown in Figma's style picker.
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world profile, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: the style is *local* (not a published library asset) and "Editors: Design only," a real permission constraint an agent cannot infer from annotations. It does not mention duplicate-name behavior or what the call returns, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Four short clauses, zero filler, with the resource and the apply path front-loaded. It reads as telegraphic fragments rather than sentences, which is efficient but slightly cryptic on first read.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, related tools, and permission scope, but never says what comes back (a style id/key to pass to figma_apply_style_to_node) or how name collisions are handled. Those gaps matter because there is no output schema to fill them.

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 coverage is 67% and the effect sub-object is documented field by field with defaults and per-type applicability. The description adds only that entries mirror figma_set_effects and cover shadows/blurs; it says nothing about name, description, session, idempotencyKey, or the stale/force contract. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the load.

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 names the resource precisely ("a local effect style (shadows, blurs)") and implicitly separates it from the paint/text/grid style siblings by qualifying it as an effect style. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the title "Create effect style" to supply the action, so it falls just short of a full verb+resource statement.

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?

Three sibling relationships are spelled out: apply it with figma_apply_style_to_node, edit it with figma_update_style, and its entries match figma_set_effects. That effectively routes the agent between the create-style path and the direct-effects path, though it never states the selection rule outright ("use this instead of figma_set_effects when you want a reusable style").

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