Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

rename_page

Rename a Figma page by providing its page ID and the new name. Updates the existing page to the specified name.

Instructions

Rename a page.

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": {
      "pageId": "<pageId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNew name
pageIdYesPage ID

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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet 'Rename a page' only restates the operation. It does not indicate whether the rename is immediate, whether references need updating, whether permissions are required, or what happens on failure.

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 extremely concise: three words, no filler, and the key information is front-loaded. Every part of the sentence is purposeful, even though more behavioral detail is needed elsewhere.

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 simple mutation tool, this is borderline adequate, but the absence of annotations, output schema, and any relationship to sibling rename tools leaves the agent without enough context. The description does not say what a successful rename returns or how this differs from rename_node.

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 covers both parameters 100%, so the schema already documents pageId and name. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's own 'Page ID' and 'New name' labels, which keeps it at the baseline.

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: 'Rename a page.' It clearly identifies the operation, but it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from sibling tools like rename_node or batch_rename, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 rename_node or batch_rename. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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