Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete variables

figma_delete_variable
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete variables (design tokens) by id. Nodes bound to one keep its last resolved value. figma_get_variable_defs lists ids. Returns per-item results: items: [{ id, ok, error? }] — one node failing does not fail the call.

Instructions

Delete variables (design tokens) by id. Nodes bound to one keep its last resolved value. figma_get_variable_defs lists ids. 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.
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
variableIdsYese.g. ["VariableID:1:2"].
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructive=true, but the description adds materially: "Nodes bound to one keep its last resolved value" describes the post-deletion effect, and the per-item results contract explains that one node failing does not fail the call (partial-success semantics). It also adds editor-support scope (Design vs unverified FigJam/Slides), which no annotation covers.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and then packs consequence, id source, return shape, and editor support into a couple of tight sentences with no filler. It is somewhat telegraphic, but every clause carries distinct information an agent would otherwise lack.

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, yet the description defines the return shape (`items: [{ id, ok, error? }]`) and partial-failure behavior, covers the destructive side effect, and scopes editor availability. For a 4-param destructive mutation, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so force, session, variableIds, and idempotencyKey are all documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the id-based semantics and cross-references where to get ids, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Delete variables (design tokens) by id." This is clearly distinct from sibling figma_delete_variable_collection (collection-level) and figma_delete_style, and the parenthetical gloss '(design tokens)' removes ambiguity about what a variable is.

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?

Points the agent to figma_get_variable_defs for obtaining ids, which is the key prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast with figma_delete_variable_collection or explain when to prefer deleting a whole collection, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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