Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

set_text_content

Update a Figma text node's content while preserving its existing styles. Provide the node ID and new text to replace text without altering design.

Instructions

Update text content of a text node without changing styles.

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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "set_text_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesNew text content
nodeIdYesText node ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: styles are preserved ('without changing styles'). It does not mention side effects like undo behavior or error cases, but the main side-effect boundary is clearly stated.

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, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the most relevant constraint. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, target resource, and a key behavioral boundary. It is not exhaustive about failure modes or return values, but it is sufficient for correct basic invocation.

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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters (nodeId and text), with 100% coverage. The description adds only the context that text updates are style-preserving, not additional parameter-level detail, 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('text content of a text node'), and adds a clear scope boundary ('without changing styles'). This distinguishes it from style-focused siblings like style_text_range and set_fill.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for text-only changes and explicitly excludes style changes, but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. An agent would have to infer when to choose this over siblings like batch_replace_text or create_text.

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