Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
figma-free-mcp

figma-free-mcp

by haju-xp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

set_font_weight

Adjust the font weight of a specified text node in Figma by providing the node ID and a weight value from 100 to 900.

Instructions

Set the font weight of a text node in Figma

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>",
      "weight": "<weight>"
    },
    "name": "set_font_weight"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the text node to modify
weightYesFont weight (100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.13

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence that is direct and contains no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells what the tool does, but could mention return values or errors. However, given the low complexity, it is relatively complete.

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% since both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb (Set), resource (font weight of a text node), and platform (Figma). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_font_size or set_font_name.

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 vs alternatives. The description only states the action, with no context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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