Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

bind_variable

Bind a Figma variable to a node property such as fills, strokes, or cornerRadius to enable design token-driven styling.

Instructions

Bind a variable to a node property.

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>",
      "property": "<property>",
      "variableId": "<variableId>"
    },
    "name": "bind_variable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesTarget node
propertyYesProperty to bind: fills, strokes, cornerRadius, paddingTop, etc.
variableIdYesVariable ID to bind

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral responsibility. It states only the operation and omits side effects such as whether existing property values are overridden, whether the variable must already exist, or whether the binding is reversible.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation it describes.

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?

Given the low parameter count and fully documented schema, the definition is adequate for constructing a valid call. However, the lack of behavioral context, prerequisites, and any annotation or output schema leaves room for misinterpretation of what binding actually entails.

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 nodeId, property, and variableId are already documented. The description reinforces the purpose but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 ('bind') and identifies the resource ('variable' and 'node property'), clearly conveying the core action. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like set_fill or update_ariable, which slightly weakens differentiation.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as set_fill for literal values or update_ariable for editing variables. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.

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