Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

create_arrow

Create an arrow shape in Figma by specifying length, direction, color, and stroke weight for design layouts.

Instructions

Create an arrow shape.

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": {
      "length": "<length>"
    },
    "name": "create_arrow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colorNoColor
lengthYesArrow length
parentIdNoParent node ID
directionNoDirection (default: RIGHT)
strokeWeightNoWeight (default: 2)

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'Create an arrow shape' implies mutation but does not explain where the arrow is inserted, whether it modifies the current selection, whether it requires any permissions, or what the return value is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is terse and front-loaded, though it is minimal enough that it under-specifies contextual behavior.

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 creation tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description leaves gaps around return values and creation context. However, the schema fully documents parameters and defaults, so the minimum information needed for basic invocation is present.

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%, and all five parameters already have descriptions, including defaults for direction and strokeWeight. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but the schema does the necessary work, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create an arrow shape.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinguishable from shape-creation siblings by naming the arrow shape type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from create_line, create_vector, or other similar creation tools.

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 use create_arrow versus alternatives like create_line, create_vector, or other shape tools. The description does not mention preconditions, selection requirements, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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