Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

lock_node

Lock or unlock a specific Figma node by providing its node ID and target state. Control editing permissions to prevent accidental modifications.

Instructions

Lock/unlock a node.

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>",
      "locked": "<locked>"
    },
    "name": "lock_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lockedYesLock state
nodeIdYesTarget node

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, and 'Lock/unlock a node' only restates the core mutation. It does not explain what locking does (e.g., prevents selection or editing), whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficiently sized for a simple tool, though the brevity edges toward under-specification of surrounding behavior rather than tight-but-rich prose.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the core invocation is understandable. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description leaves lock semantics and sibling differentiation (lock_node vs batch_lock) unexplained, so an agent lacks full context for correct selection.

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 nodeId ('Target node') and locked ('Lock state') are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (lock/unlock) on a specific resource (node), going beyond the bare name by revealing the tool handles both directions of the state change. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the batch_lock sibling or clarify what 'locked' means in the design-tool context.

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 such as batch_lock (multiple nodes) or set_visibility (similar single-property mutation). There are no preconditions, exclusions, or selection requirements stated, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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