Skip to main content
Glama
AvYour

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Resize nodes

figma_resize_nodes
Idempotent

Resize Figma nodes, set width/height or fixed/hug/fill sizing, and apply min/max limits to keep text readable and fit auto-layout.

Instructions

Resize nodes, or change how they size (Figma's fixed / hug / fill). Give width and/or height; the other dimension is kept — a text given only a width wraps and grows downwards. sizing: { horizontal: "fill" } makes a node take its auto-layout parent's width (the fix for text that overflows). min/max limits bound a hug or fill size — a fill paragraph with maxWidth 480 stays readable — on auto-layout frames and their direct children; clearLimits removes them. A node whose size is not its own — a sticky, a table, a connector, a code block, a 1920×1080 slide — is refused per item with the tool that sizes it. Returns per-item results: items: [{ id, ok, error? }] — one node failing does not fail the call. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widthNo
heightNo
sizingNoHow it sizes, as in Figma's panel: { "horizontal": "fill" } to take the parent column's width; "hug" fits content; "fixed" keeps the number.
nodeIdsYes
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
maxWidthNo
minWidthNo
maxHeightNo
minHeightNo
clearLimitsNoLimits to remove.
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. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: per-item refusal for sticky/table/connector/code block/slide nodes, partial-failure semantics ('one node failing does not fail the call'), text wrap-and-grow behavior, and editor support tiers ('Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides'). This adds substantial context on top of the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints.

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 purpose, then behaviors, then return shape, then editor scope. Dense but each clause contributes; slightly long but no clearly wasted sentence.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description supplies the return format ('items: [{ id, ok, error? }]'), failure semantics, refusal behavior, and editor scope. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 only 36%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains width/height interaction (the other dimension is kept), the sizing enum semantics, min/max limit behavior, and clearLimits. It does not cover nodeIds' 500-item cap, but nodeIds itself is self-evident.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Resize nodes') and immediately extends it to a second capability ('or change how they size'), distinguishing it from siblings like rotate_nodes, move_nodes and reorder_nodes. An agent can tell what it does without opening 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete when-to-use context: 'fill' sizing is prescribed as 'the fix for text that overflows', min/max limits are scoped to 'auto-layout frames and their direct children', and refused node types are routed to 'the tool that sizes it'. It lacks explicit naming of alternative sibling tools, but the selection guidance is clear.

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