Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

create_component_set

Combine multiple Figma components into a variant set to organize design variations and simplify component management.

Instructions

Combine component variants into a variant set.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "componentIds": "<componentIds>"
    },
    "name": "create_component_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesComponent set name
componentIdsYesArray of component IDs to combine

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Combine component variants into a variant set' and does not state whether a new object is created, whether the original variants are modified, whether the IDs must belong to the same base component, or what the tool returns.

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 seven words, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool, the definition is minimally viable: both required parameters are fully documented and the core task is stated. However, without an output schema or annotations, an agent still lacks return behavior and practical requirements such as whether the variants must share a base component.

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%, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does add mild semantic reinforcement by implying componentIds refer to component variants and name is the resulting set name, but it adds no constraints or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Combine') and resource ('component variants' into a 'variant set'). The term 'variant set' clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_component, create_component_instance, and create_smart_component.

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 description implies the intended scenario—use this when component variants exist and need to be combined into a set—but it provides no explicit preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use this versus related component-creation tools.

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