Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete nodes

figma_delete_nodes
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete nodes by id. This is the correct way to undo agent work: pass the ids the create call returned. One Ctrl+Z reverts the whole original call.

Instructions

Delete nodes by id. This is the correct way to undo agent work: pass the ids the create call returned. One Ctrl+Z reverts the whole original call. In a deck a slide row that still holds slides is refused (delete its slides first); a row its last slide left is reported in emptiedRows. Returns per-item results: items: [{ id, ok, error? }] — one node failing does not fail the call. 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.
nodeIdsYes
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
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?

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: partial-failure semantics ("one node failing does not fail the call"), the refusal rule for non-empty slide rows, the `emptiedRows` report channel, undo granularity ("One Ctrl+Z reverts the whole original call"), and editor support scope (Design verified, FigJam/Slides unverified). These are exactly the operational traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 purpose, then undo framing, then edge cases, then return shape, then editor scope. Six short clauses with no filler; the semi-colon and parenthetical usages are used to compress caveats rather than pad.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return contract itself (`items: [{ id, ok, error? }]`, `emptiedRows`). Combined with the refusal rules and editor-coverage caveat, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%; `force`, `session`, and `idempotencyKey` are already documented in the schema. The description compensates for the one bare parameter, `nodeIds`, by specifying its provenance ("the ids the create call returned") and the 500-item batch behavior implied by per-item results. It adds real meaning rather than restating fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete nodes by id") and immediately disambiguates the intent by framing it as the undo path for agent work. An agent can distinguish it from figma_undo_step or figma_clone_node without reading the 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("the correct way to undo agent work: pass the ids the create call returned") and gives a concrete prerequisite for the deck/slides case ("delete its slides first"). It stops short of naming sibling tools such as figma_undo_step or figma_delete_variable, so the alternative-selection guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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