Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

clean_hidden_layers

Remove all hidden layers from a Figma node tree to reduce clutter and optimize file size. Use dryRun to preview changes before deleting.

Instructions

Remove all hidden layers from a node tree.

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": "clean_hidden_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dryRunNoPreview changes without deleting (default: false)
nodeIdYesRoot node to clean

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'Remove', leaving ambiguity about recursive behavior, effect on locked layers, irreversibility, or what counts as hidden. The dryRun parameter is only in the schema, not the description, so the preview option isn't surfaced to the agent.

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?

A single, tight sentence front-loads the action and object, with no filler. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose.

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?

The tool is destructive and lacks annotations and an output schema, so an agent needs more context about scope and consequences. The description doesn't specify recursion depth, locked-layer handling, or what 'hidden' means, leaving a non-trivial gap.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema fully documents nodeId and dryRun; the description adds no further parameter meaning. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't reinforce the semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('hidden layers from a node tree'), making the operation clear and distinct from siblings like set_visibility or delete_node. It also implies the scoping unit (node tree), which helps an agent understand what is affected.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't contrast with sibling tools such as delete_node or set_visibility, and doesn't specify scenarios that call for cleaning hidden layers.

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