Apply shadows and blurs to a Figma node by specifying effect type, radius, offset, and color. Set drop shadows, inner shadows, or layer/background blur directly.
Apply elevation shadows, inner shadows, and blurs to a node (DROP_SHADOW, INNER_SHADOW, LAYER_BLUR, BACKGROUND_BLUR)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | Target node ID to apply visual effects to | |
| effects | Yes | List of visual effects to apply |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 only says 'apply' and lists effect types; it does not disclose whether existing effects are replaced, whether an empty array clears effects, or any other side-effect semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource while compactly listing the supported effect types in parentheses. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify behavioral semantics like replace-versus-merge behavior and how to remove effects. The schema fully documents the parameters, but the operational context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with nodeId, effects, and all nested fields (type, color, offset, radius, spread, visible) already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Apply') and names the exact resources: elevation shadows, inner shadows, and blurs. It also enumerates the four supported effect types, making it clearly distinct from siblings like set_stroke or update_node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_stroke or update_node. There is also no mention of whether effects replace existing ones or how to clear effects, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.