Skip to main content
Glama
andreycretsu

Cursor Talk to Figma MCP

by andreycretsu

clone_node

Duplicate Figma design elements by cloning nodes to new positions, enabling design iteration and layout adjustments through programmatic automation.

Instructions

Clone an existing node in Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to clone
xNoNew X position for the clone
yNoNew Y position for the clone

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function registers the 'clone_node' MCP tool, defines its input schema (nodeId required, x/y optional), sends the command to the Figma plugin via WebSocket using sendCommandToFigma, processes the result or error, and returns a formatted text response with the new node's name and ID.
    server.tool(
      "clone_node",
      "Clone an existing node in Figma",
      {
        nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to clone"),
        x: z.number().optional().describe("New X position for the clone"),
        y: z.number().optional().describe("New Y position for the clone")
      },
      async ({ nodeId, x, y }) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma('clone_node', { nodeId, x, y });
          const typedResult = result as { name: string, id: string };
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Cloned node "${typedResult.name}" with new ID: ${typedResult.id}${x !== undefined && y !== undefined ? ` at position (${x}, ${y})` : ''}`
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error cloning node: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`
              }
            ]
          };
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Clone' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires edit permissions, what happens to the original node, whether the clone inherits properties, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what the clone operation returns, what properties are copied, whether the operation is reversible, or permission requirements. Given the complexity of cloning operations and lack of structured data, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 documents all three parameters (nodeId, x, y) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining coordinate systems or node ID formats. 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 ('Clone') and resource ('an existing node in Figma'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_frame' or 'create_rectangle' which also create visual elements, leaving some ambiguity about when cloning is preferred over creating new elements.

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 when cloning is appropriate versus creating new nodes with sibling tools like 'create_frame', nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing node ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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/andreycretsu/cursor-talk-to-figma-mcp-main'

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