Skip to main content
Glama
arinspunk

Claude Talk to Figma MCP

by arinspunk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

group_nodes

Group Figma nodes into a container. Input node IDs and an optional name to organize your design layers.

Instructions

Group nodes in Figma

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional name for the group",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / nodeIds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Array of IDs of the nodes to group",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "nodeIds"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but merely states the action. It does not disclose whether grouping is destructive, requires selection, or affects existing groups, leaving the agent uninformed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient, but lacks any explanatory structure. It earns a high conciseness score but could benefit from minimal elaboration.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the effect of grouping, side effects, or expected behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Group nodes in Figma' clearly states the action (group) and resource (nodes), distinguishing it from siblings like 'ungroup_nodes', 'flatten_node', and 'delete_node'.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or 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