Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

batch_rename

Apply a naming pattern to multiple Figma nodes simultaneously. Use {n} for auto-numbering or {name} to retain current names.

Instructions

Rename multiple nodes using a pattern.

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>",
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "batch_rename"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdsYesNodes to rename
patternYesName pattern. Use {n} for number, {name} for current name. E.g. "Card {n}"
startNumberNoStarting number (default: 1)

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'rename multiple nodes' and does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether existing names are overwritten, how numbering works, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and stays appropriately minimal.

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?

Because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about what happens after execution, order of renaming, or behavior when names collide. The current description is too sparse to fully support reliable agent invocation.

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, pattern, and startNumber. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Rename'), the resource ('multiple nodes'), and the method ('using a pattern'). It is reasonably distinct from the sibling rename_node because it explicitly targets multiple nodes, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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 about when to prefer this tool over rename_node or other batch operations, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description implies batch renaming but does not help an agent decide between alternatives.

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