Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
conductor-figma

conductor-figma

by Dragoon0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

set_visibility

Show or hide a Figma node by setting its visibility state. Resolve display issues by toggling node visibility directly.

Instructions

Show/hide 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>",
      "visible": "<visible>"
    },
    "name": "set_visibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesTarget node
visibleYesVisibility

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.3.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic show/hide effect and does not mention whether the operation mutates state, whether visible=true means shown, any permission needs, or what the tool returns.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. For a simple two-parameter setter, this is appropriately compact.

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 mutation with no output schema, this is borderline adequate: the core operation is clear and the schema documents both parameters. However, there is no behavioral context, no mention of single-node scope, no return behavior, and no alternative routing, leaving notable gaps.

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 and visible are already documented. The 'show/hide' wording adds a small clarifying mapping between the boolean and its effect, but it does not go beyond the schema's own 'Visibility' description.

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 and resource: 'Show/hide a node' clearly identifies the action and target. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like batch_set_visibility, so it stops short of full 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_set_visibility or lock_node. No conditions, exclusions, or context about single-node vs batch usage are provided.

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