rename_node
Renames a specified Figma node to a new layer name using the node ID.
Instructions
Rename a node. Returns { ok, nodeId }.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New layer name | |
| nodeId | Yes | Figma node id |
Renames a specified Figma node to a new layer name using the node ID.
Rename a node. Returns { ok, nodeId }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New layer name | |
| nodeId | Yes | Figma node id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) but not destructive. The description adds minimal context beyond the operation name, which is standard. No contradiction found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence stating the action and return value. No wasted words, front-loaded effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple rename operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It specifies the return format but could mention any constraints like name uniqueness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'rename' and the resource 'node', distinguishing it from siblings like rename_page and rename_variable. The return type is also specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like rename_page or rename_variable. The description does not provide context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/awdr74100/figwright'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server