Skip to main content
Glama

Edit component property

figma_edit_component_property
Idempotent

Change a component property that already exists: rename it (name — the key changes and is returned), change its default, set an instance swap's preferred components, or wire / unwire layers (bindNodeIds / unbindNodeIds, matched by…

Instructions

Change a component property that already exists: rename it (name — the key changes and is returned), change its default, set an instance swap's preferred components, or wire / unwire layers (bindNodeIds / unbindNodeIds, matched by name path in every variant of a set). A variant id is redirected to its set. Figma's rules are checked before anything changes: no default for VARIANT or SLOT, preferredValues only on INSTANCE_SWAP and SLOT. To add a property use figma_add_component_property; to change one instance's value, figma_set_instance_properties. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoA new name.
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").
bindNodeIdsNoLayers inside the component to drive with this property.
componentIdYesThe COMPONENT or COMPONENT_SET (a variant id is redirected to its set).
defaultValueNoText, "true"/"false" for BOOLEAN, a component id for INSTANCE_SWAP.
unbindNodeIdsNoLayers to stop driving.
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.
preferredValuesNoINSTANCE_SWAP / SLOT: component or component-set ids offered first. [] clears them.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false): it discloses the pre-flight validation rules (no default for VARIANT or SLOT, preferredValues only on INSTANCE_SWAP/SLOT), variant-id redirection to the set, name-path matching across every variant, and that renaming changes the key and returns it. It also declares editor support scope (Design verified; FigJam/Slides unverified), which is real operational context.

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-loaded with the mutation modes and ends with sibling routing and platform scope — no filler sentences. It is dense with parentheticals and conditional rule clauses, which costs some readability, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description covers purpose, alternatives, validation constraints, and platform support. The remaining gap is return shape: it mentions the new key is 'returned' but does not say what the overall result looks like, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all 10 parameters — baseline 3. The description still adds semantics the schema lacks: bindNodeIds/unbindNodeIds are 'matched by name path in every variant of a set', and `name` changes the key rather than just labeling it. `force` and `idempotencyKey` semantics live only in the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Change a component property that already exists') and then enumerates the concrete mutation modes: rename, default change, preferred components, bind/unbind layers. It distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings by name, so an agent can pick it without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes adjacent intents elsewhere: 'To add a property use figma_add_component_property; to change one instance's value, figma_set_instance_properties.' It also states the precondition that Figma's rules are validated before any write, which is a usage constraint rather than mere description.

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