Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Set locked

figma_set_locked
Idempotent

Lock or unlock nodes. Returns per-item results: items: [{ id, ok, error? }] — one node failing does not fail the call. Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides.

Instructions

Lock or unlock nodes. 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.
lockedYes
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructiveness, and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: per-item results shape (`items: [{ id, ok, error? }]`) and the key guarantee that one node failing does not fail the whole call. Editor compatibility is also disclosed. It does not, however, explain permission requirements or how already-locked nodes are handled.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action. The return-shape detail and editor caveat each earn their place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential partial-failure semantics and editor support. Minor gaps remain around permissions and group/child locking behavior, but nothing critical to safe invocation is missing.

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 have meaningful descriptions in the schema, while locked and nodeIds are undocumented but self-evident (boolean lock state, array of node IDs). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate given the moderate schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lock or unlock') and resource ('nodes'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like figma_set_visible or figma_set_opacity. An agent can identify the operation 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_visible, set_opacity), nor on preconditions such as reading nodes before locking. The editor-support note ('Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides') is useful context but not usage selection guidance.

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