Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Rename node

figma_rename_node
Idempotent

Rename one node. The previous name is returned, so a rename can be reported as a change rather than an assertion. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Instructions

Rename one node. The previous name is returned, so a rename can be reported as a change rather than an assertion. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
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.
nodeIdYes
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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write. The description adds two pieces of real context beyond them: the previous name is returned (so a rename is verifiable), and editor coverage is Design-only with FigJam/Slides unverified. However, it omits the STALE/force refusal behavior, which is the operation's most important failure mode and is only documented in the parameter schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the returned value. The trailing editor-coverage sentence is somewhat parenthetical but carries genuine applicability information, so little is wasted.

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 simple single-node mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does, that the prior name comes back, and where it works. The stale-write refusal and idempotency-key retry story live in the schema, so the overall package is nearly complete; only the failure mode goes unmentioned in the description itself.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the schema already explains force, session, and idempotencyKey in detail; nodeId and name are self-evident. The description adds no parameter information at all, so it does not compensate for the remaining coverage gap, but the baseline of 3 applies given the rich schema descriptions.

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?

"Rename one node" is a specific verb+resource and the scope word "one" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling figma_batch_rename_nodes. An agent can identify the tool's job 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage guidance is implicit: renaming a single node versus the batch sibling is only implied by "one node". The added environment note ("Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides") is useful context but is about platform support rather than when to choose this tool over 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