Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Detach instance

figma_detach_instance
DestructiveIdempotent

Detach instances into plain frames that no longer follow their component. The frame gets a new id, reported per item as frameId. Cannot be re-attached. Returns per-item results: `items: [{ id, ok, error?

Instructions

Detach instances into plain frames that no longer follow their component. The frame gets a new id, reported per item as frameId. Cannot be re-attached. 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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real context beyond them: irreversibility, that a new frame id is generated, and that per-item failures are tolerated ('one node failing does not fail the call'). That partial-failure semantics is not recoverable from annotations alone.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the transformation and its consequence, followed by the irreversibility warning and result contract. No filler.

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 supplies the return contract (`items: [{ id, ok, error? }]`, `frameId`) and the partial-failure behavior. Combined with irreversibility and platform scope, 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 75% and the schema already documents force, session, and idempotencyKey well, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of `frameId` and the items result shape is output information rather than added meaning for the input parameters, which it leaves untouched.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Detach instances') plus the concrete outcome ('into plain frames that no longer follow their component'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like figma_create_instance and figma_swap_component, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

Gives meaningful usage context: irreversible ('Cannot be re-attached') and editor support scope ('Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides'). It does not articulate when to prefer a detach over e.g. swap_component or clone, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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