Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create page

figma_create_page
Idempotent

A new page. Note: a free Starter file is capped at 3 pages and Figma's own error is surfaced as-is when the cap is hit — that is a plan limit, not a bridge limit. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Instructions

A new page. Note: a free Starter file is capped at 3 pages and Figma's own error is surfaced as-is when the cap is hit — that is a plan limit, not a bridge limit. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

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.
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
activateNoSwitch to the new page. Default false.
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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses a real behavioral constraint: free Starter files cap at 3 pages, and the resulting failure is Figma's own error surfaced as-is, not a bridge error. That distinction matters for error triage, and the app-availability caveat (Design verified, FigJam/Slides unverified) is useful operational context.

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?

It is short and the constraint note is dense with useful information, but the most important sentence — what the tool actually does — is a four-word fragment, while a plan-limit caveat leads the body. Front-loading favors the edge case over the core action.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description plus the detailed schema cover most of what an agent needs: what is created, plan cap behavior, environment support, idempotent retries, and the activate/force semantics. The only gap is that it never says what is returned (page id/name) or whether the new page is empty, but the schema does much of the load here.

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 80% and the parameter descriptions are unusually rich (force/STALE semantics, idempotencyKey retry behavior, session selection, activate default). The description adds nothing about any of the five parameters, so it earns only the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 opens with the noun phrase "A new page." which essentially restates the tool name rather than stating a verb+resource action. It does identify the resource (page) as distinct from frames/sections, but there is no explicit statement that this creates a page, and no differentiation from the many other figma_create_* siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., create_section, clone_node). The only usage-shaped information is the environment note ("Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides"), which tells the agent where the tool is available but not when to pick it.

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