Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Claude Talk to Figma MCP

Claude Talk to Figma MCP

by arinspunk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_component_from_node

Convert any Figma node into a reusable component by providing its node ID. Optionally name the component and specify a parent page.

Instructions

Convert an existing node (frame, group, etc.) into a reusable component in Figma

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>"
    },
    "name": "create_component_from_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to convert into a component
nameNoOptional new name for the component
parentIdNoParent node ID. REQUIRED — server enforces this. Use page node ID for top-level elements. Get page IDs via get_pages tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action ('convert...into a reusable component') without disclosing whether the original node is replaced or kept, side effects, authentication needs, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and noun ('Convert an existing node...'), no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema or behavioral disclosure, the description omits return value, constraints (e.g., what node types can be converted), and error handling. Adequate for minimal understanding but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., name is optional, parentId is required). Baseline 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 clearly states the tool converts an existing node (like frame, group) into a reusable component. It specifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_component_instance' which creates instances rather than converting.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_component_set). The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts where conversion is not possible (e.g., unsupported node types), or any exclusions.

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