Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

align_nodes

Align multiple Figma nodes in a layout by specifying alignment type, such as left, center, right, top, middle, bottom, or distribute horizontally/vertically.

Instructions

Align multiple nodes relative to each other.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "nodeIds": "<nodeIds>"
    },
    "name": "align_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdsYesNodes to align
alignmentNoAlignment type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation but does not mention that alignment mutates node positions, what alignment is computed relative to, whether nodes must share a parent, or any side effects. 'Relative to each other' adds some context but leaves major behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the operation and the scope ('multiple nodes relative to each other') efficiently.

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

Completeness2/5

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 is incomplete. It does not explain expected node count, whether the alignment applies to the group's bounding box or individual nodes, or how this relates to batch_align. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents nodeIds and alignment adequately. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which fits the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Align multiple nodes relative to each other.' This makes the core operation clear, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool batch_align, which likely performs a similar alignment operation across multiple nodes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_align, set_constraints, or reorder_node. The description only states what it does, not the conditions that make it the right choice.

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