Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Set prototype reactions

figma_set_reactions
Idempotent

Replace a node's prototype interactions. reactions is a JSON array. Shorthand per entry: { "trigger": "ON_CLICK", "action": { "type": "NODE", "destinationId": "12:3", "transition": "SMART_ANIMATE", "duration": 0.3 } } — duration in…

Instructions

Replace a node's prototype interactions. reactions is a JSON array. Shorthand per entry: { "trigger": "ON_CLICK", "action": { "type": "NODE", "destinationId": "12:3", "transition": "SMART_ANIMATE", "duration": 0.3 } } — duration in seconds; navigation defaults to NAVIGATE. Figma's full Reaction shape (what figma_get_reactions returns) is accepted as is. Other actions: BACK, CLOSE, URL ({ type, url }). 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.
nodeIdYes
sessionNoOptional sessionId or file name, to pick a Figma file when more than one is connected.
reactionsYesJSON array of reactions; [] removes all.
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?

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that existing interactions are replaced, that an empty array wipes them all, and which editors support the operation. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false); the description adds the mutation semantics without contradicting them.

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 action, then the payload shape, then defaults, then editor scope. It is dense but every clause carries usable information; no filler sentences.

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 no output schema, it covers the payload, overwrite semantics, and editor support well. The return value of the call is not described, and the stale-write/force flow is only discoverable via the schema, leaving minor gaps.

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 80%, but the reactions parameter's own schema text is thin ('JSON array of reactions'), so the description carries the real load: it gives the shorthand shape, the duration unit, NAVIGATE default, and alternate action types (BACK, CLOSE, URL). force, session, and idempotencyKey are left to the schema, which documents them well.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Replace a node's prototype interactions'), which is precise and clearly narrower than sibling read tool figma_get_reactions. It does not explicitly name siblings like figma_remove_reactions or figma_set_prototype_flows, so the boundary is implied rather than stated.

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 replace semantics and the '[] removes all' note imply when to use it, and the editor support line ('Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides') gives useful prerequisites. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over figma_remove_reactions or figma_set_prototype_flows, and the STALE/force workflow is only in the schema, not the 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