Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create polygon

figma_create_polygon
Idempotent

A regular polygon — triangle (pointCount 3), diamond (4, rotated 45 with figma_rotate_nodes), pentagon, hexagon… Badges, play buttons, decorative geometry. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Instructions

A regular polygon — triangle (pointCount 3), diamond (4, rotated 45 with figma_rotate_nodes), pentagon, hexagon… Badges, play buttons, decorative geometry. 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.
strokeNo
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
parentIdNo
pointCountNoSides, default 3.
cornerRadiusNoRounds the outer corners.
strokeWeightNoDefault 1 when a stroke is given.
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 declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait not in annotations: editor support ('Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides'), plus the multi-step note that a diamond requires a follow-up rotation. The force/STALE and idempotency behavior is delegated to schema descriptions.

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 the resource definition, then examples, then editor support, with no filler. The em-dash density is slightly compressed but every clause (pointCount mappings, rotation, editor scope) carries information.

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 15-parameter creation tool with a nested sizing object and no output schema, the description covers purpose and editor context but does not compensate for the many undocumented optional parameters (positions, fill, stroke, parent). Adequate but with clear gaps given the schema's 47% coverage.

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 47%, so the description must help but only partly does. It adds useful meaning to pointCount (side count, with 3/4 mapped to triangle/diamond and the rotation caveat), but leaves x, y, fill, name, stroke, and parentId undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

The description states exactly what is created (a regular polygon) and disambiguates it from sibling shape tools by specifying the side-count mechanism (pointCount 3 = triangle, 4 = diamond via rotation) versus star/ellipse/rectangle. Concrete use cases (badges, play buttons, decorative geometry) reinforce the resource identity.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance through examples ('Badges, play buttons, decorative geometry') and even routes the diamond case through figma_rotate_nodes, an explicit alternative interaction. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named shape alternatives, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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