Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Group nodes

figma_group_nodes
Idempotent

Wrap nodes into a GROUP. All nodes must share one parent — Figma enforces this and the error says so when it applies. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Instructions

Wrap nodes into a GROUP. All nodes must share one parent — Figma enforces this and the error says so when it applies. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover mutation safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context: Figma enforces the shared-parent constraint and surfaces an error, and it discloses editor support with Design verified and FigJam/Slides unverified. It does not describe the return value or side effects like selection changes, but that is less critical given 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?

The description is front-loaded with the action, then the key constraint, then platform support. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 moderate-complexity mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description gives the critical constraint and platform support. It leaves gaps around the name parameter and return value, but with no output schema and partial schema descriptions, the overall definition is reasonably complete.

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 60%: force, session, and idempotencyKey are documented in the schema, while nodeIds and name are not. The description adds an important constraint for nodeIds ('all nodes must share one parent') and implies grouping semantics, but it says nothing about the name parameter or how the other parameters modify behavior beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Wrap nodes into a GROUP.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish grouping from related siblings like ungroupping, flattening, or boolean operations.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('All nodes must share one parent') and platform availability ('Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides'), which tells an agent when the tool applies. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives such as figma_ungroup_nodes or figma_boolean_nodes.

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