Skip to main content
Glama
arinspunk

Claude Talk to Figma MCP

by arinspunk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ungroup_nodes

Ungroup any group or frame in Figma by providing its node ID, releasing child nodes from the container.

Instructions

Ungroup nodes in Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesID of the node (group or frame) to ungroup

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / nodeId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ID of the node (group or frame) to ungroup",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "nodeId"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Ungroup nodes' without explaining what happens to children after ungrouping, whether it is destructive, or if it only works on certain node types. The parameter schema mentions 'group or frame', but this context is not in the description itself.

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 (2 words), which is efficient but lacks structure. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, yet additional context could be added without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the result of ungrouping, error conditions, or any side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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%: the nodeId parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (ungroup) and resource (nodes in Figma), distinguishing it from sibling tools like group_nodes and flatten_node. However, it does not specify that it works on both groups and frames, which is only in the parameter description.

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 on when to use this tool or when not to. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the node must be a group or frame) or alternatives like flatten_node for more permanent operations.

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