Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create ellipse

figma_create_ellipse
Idempotent

An ellipse with an optional fill. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Instructions

An ellipse with an optional fill. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
fillNo
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.
widthYes
heightYes
sizingNoHow it sizes, as in Figma's panel: { "horizontal": "fill" } to take the parent column's width; "hug" fits content; "fixed" keeps the number.
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
parentIdNo
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

C2.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the editor-availability note (works in Design, unverified in FigJam/Slides), which is real context not present in annotations. However, it says nothing about the STALE/force overwrite semantics, parent requirements, or what gets created and returned, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler, so it is compact. But it is compact to the point of under-specification: the lead sentence is a fragment with no verb, so the size is achieved by omitting necessary information rather than by trimming waste.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with a nested `sizing` object, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry substantial weight. Instead it supplies one line of editor scoping and nothing about geometry, parenting, or the result of the call — clearly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not — it only alludes to the optional `fill` value. Critical parameters like `parentId`, `x`/`y` positioning, `sizing`, and `name` are never explained in the description, and the `force` STALE-retry semantics are documented only inside the schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is a noun phrase ("An ellipse with an optional fill") that restates the tool title rather than stating an action; the verb "create" only appears in the tool name/title. It offers no differentiation from the many sibling creation tools (figma_create_rectangle, figma_create_polygon, figma_create_star, figma_create_vector), so an agent gains nothing beyond what the name already says.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

"Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides" is a useful environment constraint that hints at when the tool is applicable, but it is terse and unexplained. There is no guidance on when to choose an ellipse over a polygon/vector, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a parentId or an active Figma session.

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