Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create star

figma_create_star
Idempotent

A star or burst: pointCount spikes, innerRadius 0–1 (low = spiky, near 1 = almost a polygon). Rating stars, sale bursts, sparkles, decorative shapes. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Instructions

A star or burst: pointCount spikes, innerRadius 0–1 (low = spiky, near 1 = almost a polygon). Rating stars, sale bursts, sparkles, decorative shapes. 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
pointCountNoSpikes, default 5.
innerRadiusNoDefault Figma's 0.38.
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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write, and the description adds useful context about editor support and shape semantics. However, it does not explain creation behavior such as where the node is inserted, what is returned, or permission/session implications beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core shape concept, and then supplies use cases and editor caveats without wasted wording. Every sentence contributes either shape semantics or applicability context.

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?

Given the robust annotations and partial schema descriptions, the description is adequate for selecting the tool and understanding its core geometry. It remains thin for a 16-parameter creation tool with no output schema: it does not cover return values or several creation-context parameters such as parent, session, and required sizing context.

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?

The description adds real meaning to `pointCount` and `innerRadius`, especially the 0–1 inner-radius behavior and the spiky-to-polygon continuum. With 16 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, many parameters such as `x`, `y`, `parentId`, `fill`, and `stroke` receive no description-level clarification, so the added parameter guidance is useful but partial.

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 identifies the resource precisely as a star or burst and explains its defining geometry via `pointCount` and `innerRadius`, which separates it from a generic polygon. It does not explicitly say 'creates' or name sibling alternatives, but the tool name/title and shape-specific language make the purpose clear.

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 provides concrete use cases such as rating stars, sale bursts, sparkles, and decorative shapes, giving an agent clear situations for selection. It also notes Design is supported while FigJam and Slides are unverified, but it stops short of naming when to use `figma_create_polygon` or `figma_create_vector` instead.

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