Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figxel

Figxel

by AvYour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Ungroup

figma_ungroup_nodes
DestructiveIdempotent

Unwrap groups: their children move up into the group's parent and the group disappears. Only GROUP nodes — to move children out of a frame use figma_reparent_nodes. Each item reports childIds.

Instructions

Unwrap groups: their children move up into the group's parent and the group disappears. Only GROUP nodes — to move children out of a frame use figma_reparent_nodes. Each item reports childIds. 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.
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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the exact structural effect, per-item return shape with partial-failure semantics ('one node failing does not fail the call'), and editor support (Design; unverified FigJam, Slides). These are concrete behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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 core transformation, followed by scope exclusion, return behavior, and editor support. Every sentence carries actionable information and there is no filler.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the key semantics, exclusion, partial-failure behavior, and return shape. The slight gap is that it mentions childIds in a way that doesn't fully align with the listed item shape and does not restate the stale-write/force behavior, which is left to the schema.

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 description coverage is 75%, with the required nodeIds array having no schema description. The tool description adds no input-parameter meaning (it mentions 'childIds' only in the result context and does not explain force, session, or idempotencyKey), so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds value over the schema.

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?

The description states a specific operation (unwrap groups), the exact structural change (children move to parent, group disappears), and explicitly distinguishes it from figma_reparent_nodes for frames. An agent can identify the tool and its scope 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 Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit applicability constraint (only GROUP nodes) and names the alternative tool for the excluded case (figma_reparent_nodes for frames). This is direct when/when-not guidance rather than implied usage.

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