Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

batch_remove_effects

Remove all effects from nodes in a Figma design by specifying a root node, clearing shadows, blurs, and more.

Instructions

Remove all effects from nodes in a scope.

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": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "batch_remove_effects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesRoot node

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that effects are removed and that the operation applies to multiple nodes, which is meaningful, but it leaves 'scope' undefined and does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or effect on other node properties.

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?

Single sentence with no filler; the action and target are front-loaded and every word contributes. This is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter mutation tool, the definition is minimally viable, but the ambiguity around 'scope' and the lack of distinction from remove_all_effects leave gaps. No output schema is provided, so return-value detail is not required, but the scope semantics should be clarified.

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?

The schema already fully describes nodeId as 'Root node' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's word 'scope' weakly connects to nodeId, but adds no additional parameter semantics, constraints, or formatting guidance.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('all effects'), and a scope ('nodes in a scope'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this batch tool from the closely named sibling remove_all_effects, so an agent must infer the batching distinction from the name.

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 remove_all_effects, set_effects, or batch_remove_strokes. The name implies a batch use case, but the description does not state the intended conditions or exclusions.

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