Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

create_nav_bar

Create a navigation bar with brand logo, navigation links, and a call-to-action button. Specify brand name, items, width, CTA text, and accent color.

Instructions

Create a navigation bar with logo, links, and CTA button.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_nav_bar"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandNoBrand name (default: acme)
itemsNoNav items: ["Features", "Pricing", "Docs"]
widthNoWidth (default: 1440)
ctaTextNoCTA button text
parentIdNoParent node
brandColorNoAccent color

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool creates a nav bar. It does not explain side effects, where the node is created, how parentId affects placement, or whether any existing content is modified.

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, compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and the components of the nav bar, making it easy to parse.

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 description is minimal for a tool with six parameters and no output schema or annotations. It does not clarify return values, placement behavior, or how the optional parameters affect the result, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions logo, links, and CTA button, which loosely maps to parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides with defaults and examples.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a navigation bar with logo, links, and CTA button.' This clearly identifies the tool's function among siblings like create_header or create_footer, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_header, create_footer, or create_sidebar_layout. The intended use is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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