Skip to main content
Glama

group_nodes

Combine multiple design elements into a single group in Figma to organize your workspace and manage related components together.

Instructions

Group nodes in Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdsYesArray of IDs of the nodes to group
nameNoOptional name for the group

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'group_nodes' MCP tool using server.tool(), including description, Zod input schema, and inline handler function that forwards to Figma's group_nodes command.
    server.tool(
      "group_nodes",
      "Group nodes in Figma",
      {
        nodeIds: z.array(z.string()).describe("Array of IDs of the nodes to group"),
        name: z.string().optional().describe("Optional name for the group")
      },
      async ({ nodeIds, name }) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("group_nodes", { 
            nodeIds, 
            name 
          });
          
          const typedResult = result as { 
            id: string, 
            name: string, 
            type: string, 
            children: Array<{ id: string, name: string, type: string }> 
          };
          
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Nodes successfully grouped into "${typedResult.name}" with ID: ${typedResult.id}. The group contains ${typedResult.children.length} elements.`
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error grouping nodes: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`
              }
            ]
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • The execute function for the group_nodes tool. It calls sendCommandToFigma with the provided nodeIds and optional name, then returns a formatted text response with the new group ID and child count, or an error message.
    async ({ nodeIds, name }) => {
      try {
        const result = await sendCommandToFigma("group_nodes", { 
          nodeIds, 
          name 
        });
        
        const typedResult = result as { 
          id: string, 
          name: string, 
          type: string, 
          children: Array<{ id: string, name: string, type: string }> 
        };
        
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Nodes successfully grouped into "${typedResult.name}" with ID: ${typedResult.id}. The group contains ${typedResult.children.length} elements.`
            }
          ]
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Error grouping nodes: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`
            }
          ]
        };
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the group_nodes tool: required array of node IDs and optional group name.
    {
      nodeIds: z.array(z.string()).describe("Array of IDs of the nodes to group"),
      name: z.string().optional().describe("Optional name for the group")
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Group') but doesn't explain what grouping entails (e.g., creates a parent container, affects layer hierarchy), potential side effects (e.g., may change node positions), permissions needed, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, error handling, and output format. Given the complexity of grouping operations in design tools and the absence of structured safety hints, more context is needed for reliable agent use.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (nodeIds array and optional name). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., minimum node count). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Group') and resource ('nodes in Figma'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this grouping operation from similar sibling tools like 'ungroup_nodes' or 'flatten_node', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing nodes), exclusions (e.g., cannot group already grouped nodes), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ungroup_nodes' or 'flatten_node', leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/agenisea/cc-fig-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server