Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create grid style

figma_create_grid_style
Idempotent

A local GRID style — a named layout grid (e.g. 12 columns, 24 gutter, 64 margin) that frames follow via figma_apply_style_to_node { type: "grid" }. Entries as in figma_set_layout_grids, which sets raw grids on frames instead.

Instructions

A local GRID style — a named layout grid (e.g. 12 columns, 24 gutter, 64 margin) that frames follow via figma_apply_style_to_node { type: "grid" }. Entries as in figma_set_layout_grids, which sets raw grids on frames instead. 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.
gridsYes
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new context: the style is 'local' (not a library asset) and creation is restricted to 'Design only' editors, a real permission constraint. It doesn't discuss what happens on name collisions or what the call returns, but the force/STALE behavior is documented in the schema.

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 definition first and the disambiguation second — nothing wasted. The opening is a nominal fragment rather than a sentence, which is slightly less parseable but costs no length.

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 tool with a nested grids array, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the concept, an example, the sibling boundary, and the permission constraint. Remaining gaps (return value, retry/idempotency expectations) are handled by schema parameter descriptions.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the schema does most of the work, and the description adds a concrete worked example ('12 columns, 24 gutter, 64 margin') that maps directly onto the count/gutter/margin fields of the nested grids array, plus a cross-reference to figma_set_layout_grids for entry semantics. It doesn't add anything for name or pattern, which are the leftover uncovered fields.

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 defines the resource precisely — a local GRID style, a named layout grid with concrete example values (12 columns, 24 gutter, 64 margin) — and distinguishes it from figma_set_layout_grids, which sets raw grids on frames. The only weakness is that the creating verb lives in the title rather than the description, but the referent is unambiguous and an agent can separate it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative ('Entries as in figma_set_layout_grids, which sets raw grids on frames instead') and the downstream consumer (frames follow it via figma_apply_style_to_node). That gives a clear create-a-reusable-style vs. set-a-raw-grid routing rule. It stops short of stating the positive trigger condition ('use when the grid should be reusable across frames') outright.

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