Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

group_nodes

Group multiple Figma nodes into a single group, optionally assigning a custom group name.

Instructions

Group multiple nodes together.

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": {
      "nodeIds": "<nodeIds>"
    },
    "name": "group_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoGroup name
nodeIdsYesNode IDs to group

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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Group multiple nodes together' without explaining that this creates a group node, changes hierarchy, or how existing groups are affected. No mention of mutation, naming behavior, or reversibility.

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 extremely concise with zero filler and front-loads the action. It is efficient, though arguably too brief to carry the behavioral context an agent needs for this type of mutation tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and many related mutation tools, this description is insufficient. It does not state return behavior, whether a new group node is created, or the relationship to ungroup_nodes, leaving an agent without enough information to confidently invoke it in the right context.

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?

The input schema already documents nodeIds and name with full coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Group') and a clear resource ('multiple nodes'), communicating the core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling ungroup_nodes, but the opposing verb provides some implicit contrast.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ungroup_nodes, align_nodes, or move_to_parent. The only usage cue is the verb itself, with no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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