Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create rectangle

figma_create_rectangle
Idempotent

A rectangle with an optional fill, corner radius and stroke. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Instructions

A rectangle with an optional fill, corner radius and stroke. 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
cornerRadiusNo
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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent creation operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful platform-availability context by naming Design and unverified FigJam/Slides, but it does not explain creation side effects, parent requirements, or return behavior.

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?

The description is only two sentences and contains no filler; the styling options and editor support are stated compactly. It is concise, though that concision contributes to its under-specification for such a large schema.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 14-parameter creation tool with nested sizing, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should clarify where the rectangle is created (parentId), sizing semantics, idempotency/force behavior, and how to choose among sibling shape creators.

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?

Schema description coverage is low at 36%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions fill, cornerRadius and stroke, but omits many important parameters including parentId, sizing, x, y, name, force and idempotencyKey, leaving substantial ambiguity for a 14-parameter tool.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the resource as a rectangle with optional fill, corner radius and stroke, but it is written as a noun phrase rather than stating the create action. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling shape creators such as figma_create_ellipse, figma_create_polygon or figma_create_shapes_with_text.

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?

It gives editor availability (Design; unverified FigJam, Slides) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other shape-creation tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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