Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ChimbuezeDavid

figma-mcp

by ChimbuezeDavid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

set_autolayout

Configure Flexbox/AutoLayout rules on an existing frame to control direction, padding, gap, alignment, and wrapping.

Instructions

Configure Flexbox/AutoLayout rules (direction, padding, gap, alignment, wrapping) on an existing frame

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wrapNoEnable multi-line flex wrapping (layoutWrap = 'WRAP') for pill/badge clouds
nodeIdYesThe Frame node ID to apply AutoLayout to
paddingNoUniform padding on all sides in pixels
spacingNoGap/spacing between child items in pixels
directionYesLayout direction
paddingTopNoTop padding in pixels
paddingLeftNoLeft padding in pixels
paddingRightNoRight padding in pixels
paddingBottomNoBottom padding in pixels
counterAxisSizingNoFIXED or AUTO (Hug)
primaryAxisSizingNoFIXED or AUTO (Hug)
counterAxisSpacingNoCross-axis gap between wrapped rows in pixels
counterAxisAlignItemsNoAlignment along the cross axis
primaryAxisAlignItemsNoAlignment along the primary axis

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / counterAxisSpacing
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cross-axis gap between wrapped rows in pixels",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / wrap
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Enable multi-line flex wrapping (layoutWrap = 'WRAP') for pill/badge clouds",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states it is a mutation on an existing frame but says nothing about permissions required, whether existing layout settings are overwritten, idempotency, or whether passing direction='NONE' removes AutoLayout. For a 14-parameter mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and target front-loaded and the controlled properties enumerated compactly. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus the fully documented schema covers parameter inputs adequately, but leaves behavioral concerns (destructiveness, interaction between uniform padding and per-side padding, sizing modes) unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% with 14 well-described parameters and 5 enums, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's parenthetical list (direction, padding, gap, alignment, wrapping) roughly mirrors the schema without adding format, default, or interaction semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Configure') plus named resource ('Flexbox/AutoLayout rules') and the property families it controls (direction, padding, gap, alignment, wrapping), scoped to an existing frame. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling creators like create_frame or generic mutators like update_node.

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 phrase 'on an existing frame' implies the precondition that the node already exists, which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative (e.g. setting layout at frame creation time via create_frame), and no note about clearing AutoLayout (direction=NONE).

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