Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

generate_mobile

Generate a mobile-optimized version of any desktop Figma frame. Provide the desktop frame node and optional width to produce a layout suited for mobile screens.

Instructions

Generate a mobile-optimized version of a desktop design.

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": "generate_mobile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widthNoMobile width (default: 375)
nodeIdYesDesktop frame

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. It does not say whether the tool creates a new node, modifies the existing desktop frame, what 'mobile-optimized' changes entail, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a transformation tool.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, this short description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It lacks details about side effects, output format, and how width interacts with the design transformation, especially given a crowded field of similar responsive-design tools.

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%, with both parameters already documented (nodeId as 'Desktop frame' and width with a default). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 clearly states the action ('Generate') and the resource ('a mobile-optimized version of a desktop design'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like convert_to_responsive, create_responsive_variant, or stack_for_mobile, which appear to serve overlapping purposes.

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 the many responsive-design siblings. The description only states the general purpose, not selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits a given task.

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