Skip to main content
Glama
grab

Talk to Figma MCP

by grab

resize_node

Resize design elements in Figma by specifying the node ID, width, and height. Modify dimensions programmatically through the Talk to Figma MCP server integration.

Instructions

Resize a node in Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
heightYesNew height
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to resize
widthYesNew width

Implementation Reference

  • The handler and registration for the resize_node MCP tool. It accepts nodeId, width, and height parameters, sends a 'resize_node' command to the Figma plugin via sendCommandToFigma, and returns a success or error message.
    server.tool(
      "resize_node",
      "Resize a node in Figma",
      {
        nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to resize"),
        width: z.number().positive().describe("New width"),
        height: z.number().positive().describe("New height"),
      },
      async ({ nodeId, width, height }: any) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("resize_node", {
            nodeId,
            width,
            height,
          });
          const typedResult = result as { name: string };
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Resized node "${typedResult.name}" to width ${width} and height ${height}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error resizing node: ${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. 'Resize' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to child elements, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the action and target. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and what the tool returns. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in a real scenario.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (nodeId, width, height) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as unit explanations (e.g., pixels) or constraints on width/height values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Resize') and resource ('a node in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_node' (which changes position) and 'set_corner_radius' (which modifies shape properties). However, it doesn't specify what type of node can be resized or mention constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid node ID), exclusions (e.g., nodes that cannot be resized), or related tools like 'move_node' for repositioning. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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

Related 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/grab/cursor-talk-to-figma-mcp'

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