Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figma Bridge MCP

Figma Bridge MCP

by Halil-KAPLAN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

figma_create_frame

Create a new frame on the current Figma page by specifying name, dimensions, and position.

Instructions

Create a new frame on current 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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "width": "<width>",
      "height": "<height>"
    },
    "name": "figma_create_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
nameYes
widthYes
heightYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the basic purpose without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, prerequisites (e.g., current page selection), constraints (e.g., duplicate names), or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it under-informs. Conciseness traded for completeness; minimal viable size for a simple 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?

No output schema, no behavioral details, and no parameter descriptions. For a creation tool, missing context on return value (e.g., node ID), potential conflicts, and required context (current page existence).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does not mention any parameter roles, valid ranges, or relationships (e.g., x,y for positioning). No added meaning beyond schema names.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'create', resource 'frame', and context 'on current page'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like figma_create_text by specifying the resource type.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include creation, deletion, and modification tools, but description offers no context for selection.

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