Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create vector

figma_create_vector
Idempotent

Draw any shape from SVG path data — a blob, a wave divider, a custom arrow, a logo mark, a chart line. path is the d of an SVG (M L H V C S Q T A Z, absolute or relative). width/height scale it (one keeps its proportions).

Instructions

Draw any shape from SVG path data — a blob, a wave divider, a custom arrow, a logo mark, a chart line. path is the d of an SVG (M L H V C S Q T A Z, absolute or relative). width/height scale it (one keeps its proportions). Give stroke without fill for an open line. For a whole SVG file (an icon) use figma_import_svg. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
fillNo
nameNo
pathYese.g. "M0 40 C 60 0, 120 80, 180 40 L180 80 L0 80 Z".
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.
widthNo
heightNo
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
strokeWeightNo
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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context the annotations can't carry — editor availability (Design verified, FigJam/Slides unverified) and scaling behavior ("one keeps its proportions"). It does not restate the STALE/force overwrite protocol, but that lives in the `force` schema description, so the remaining gap is small.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then parameter semantics, then the sibling routing rule, then editor availability — a deliberate most-to-least-important order. Every sentence is a distinct, load-bearing fact; even the example list ("a blob, a wave divider, a custom arrow") disambiguates the tool's purpose rather than decorating it.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 36% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about placement parameters (x, y, parentId), what the tool returns (a node id?), and whether it defaults into the current page or a parent. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, it is adequate but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 36% across 14 params, so the description carries real burden — and it does explain `path` (the `d` attribute, with the command alphabet M L H V C S Q T A Z, absolute or relative), `width`/`height` scaling, and the stroke-without-fill interaction. But x, y, name, parentId, fill, and strokeWeight get no semantic treatment in either place, so the compensation is partial rather than complete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Draw any shape from SVG path data") and immediately distinguishes itself from the primitive shape tools (rectangle/ellipse/polygon/star) by naming concrete use cases — blob, wave divider, custom arrow, logo mark, chart line. An agent can tell this apart from figma_import_svg and the shape primitives without opening a schema.

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?

"For a whole SVG file (an icon) use figma_import_svg" is an explicit, actionable routing rule, and "Give `stroke` without `fill` for an open line" gives a usage recipe. It stops short of naming the closest sibling alternatives (figma_create_rectangle, figma_create_ellipse, figma_create_shapes_with_text) as when-not cases, so the agent must still infer the boundary with the primitive shape tools.

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