Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

batch_swap_component

Replace every instance of a selected component with another across the entire Figma file. Specify old and new component IDs to update all occurrences at once.

Instructions

Swap all instances of one component for another across the file.

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": {
      "oldComponentId": "<oldComponentId>",
      "newComponentId": "<newComponentId>"
    },
    "name": "batch_swap_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
newComponentIdYesReplacement component
oldComponentIdYesComponent to replace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the swap scope and never explains what happens to overrides, hidden/locked instances, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutating batch operation this is a significant transparency 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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded. Every word contributes.

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 two parameters, the essential scope and parameter identities are covered. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important operational details (override handling, error behavior, reversibility) unaddressed, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%: the schema already describes oldComponentId as 'Component to replace' and newComponentId as 'Replacement component.' The tool description echoes this directionality but adds no new semantic value.

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?

The description names a precise action ('Swap'), a precise object ('all instances of one component for another'), and a scope ('across the file'). This clearly separates it from the sibling swap_component, which reads as a more targeted swap.

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 'all instances... across the file' implies a global batch use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over swap_component nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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