Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete component property

figma_delete_component_property
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a TEXT, BOOLEAN, INSTANCE_SWAP or SLOT property from a component or component set: every instance loses it, overrides included. A VARIANT property cannot be deleted — it comes from the variant names, so rename the variants instead.

Instructions

Delete a TEXT, BOOLEAN, INSTANCE_SWAP or SLOT property from a component or component set: every instance loses it, overrides included. A VARIANT property cannot be deleted — it comes from the variant names, so rename the variants instead. To rename or rewire a property use figma_edit_component_property. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
propertyYesIts name ("Label") or full key ("Label#2:0").
componentIdYesThe COMPONENT or COMPONENT_SET (a variant id is redirected to its set).
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description goes further and describes the blast radius concretely ('every instance loses it, overrides included'), which is the detail an agent needs before a destructive call. It also discloses editor availability (Design; unverified FigJam/Slides), a caveat annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: the destructive consequence is front-loaded, then the exclusion, then the alternative, then environment caveats. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing layer: consequences, type restriction, sibling routing, and platform support. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive tool safely is absent.

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 100%, so all five parameters (including force, idempotencyKey, and the stale-write semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general rule about which property types are eligible, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (component property) and an explicit enumeration of the deletable property types. It also names the sibling it is not (figma_edit_component_property) and the one type it refuses (VARIANT), so an agent can distinguish it from nearby tools without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the use case, states an explicit exclusion ('A VARIANT property cannot be deleted — it comes from the variant names, so rename the variants instead'), and routes renaming/rewiring to figma_edit_component_property. When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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