Skip to main content
Glama
arinspunk

Claude Talk to Figma MCP

by arinspunk

group_nodes

Combine multiple Figma design elements into a single group for easier organization and manipulation using node IDs.

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

  • The main handler logic for the 'group_nodes' MCP tool. It forwards the parameters to Figma's 'group_nodes' command using sendCommandToFigma, processes the response, and returns a formatted success or 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)}`
            }
          ]
        };
      }
    }
  • Input schema validation using Zod for the 'group_nodes' tool parameters.
    {
      nodeIds: z.array(z.string()).describe("Array of IDs of the nodes to group"),
      name: z.string().optional().describe("Optional name for the group")
    },
  • Registration of the 'group_nodes' MCP tool on the server using server.tool(), specifying name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    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)}`
              }
            ]
          };
        }
      }
    );
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. It states the action ('group nodes') but doesn't explain what grouping entails (e.g., creates a parent frame, affects layer hierarchy, may change visual properties), whether it's destructive to original nodes, or what permissions are required. 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('group nodes') and specifies the context ('in Figma'), making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., effects on node hierarchy, whether grouping is reversible), error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of modifying Figma documents, more context is needed for safe and effective 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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('nodeIds' and 'name'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 verb ('group') and resource ('nodes in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ungroup_nodes' by specifying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_frame' or 'create_rectangle' that might also organize 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing nodes), exclusions (e.g., cannot group certain node types), or comparisons with similar tools like 'create_frame' for organizing elements. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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/arinspunk/claude-talk-to-figma-mcp'

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