Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

create_table_frame

Create a data table in Figma with headers, rows, and proper spacing. Use optional accent color for branding.

Instructions

Create a data table with headers, rows, and proper spacing.

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": {
      "columns": "<columns>"
    },
    "name": "create_table_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsNoRow data: arrays of cell values
columnsYesColumn headers
parentIdNoParent node
brandColorNoAccent color

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only that a table is created with headers and rows, but does not disclose side effects such as modifying the current selection, requiring a parent frame, applying default layout, or the relationship with parentId and brandColor.

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 filler or repeated schema content. Every phrase ('headers, rows, proper spacing') adds relevant detail about what the tool creates.

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?

For a create tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this definition is too sparse. It does not explain where the table is created, how rows map to columns, whether a parent is needed, or what controls the table's appearance, so an agent still needs to infer key invocation details.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents columns, rows, parentId, and brandColor. The description adds no deeper parameter semantics, such as row-column alignment, defaults, or how brandColor is applied.

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 names a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('data table'), and concrete contents ('headers, rows, and proper spacing'). This distinguishes it from generic siblings like create_frame or create_section and makes the tool's purpose obvious.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_frame, create_form, or manually constructing a table. The description implies intended use for tabular data but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions.

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