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

figma-free-mcp

by haju-xp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

set_text_decoration

Set the text decoration of a Figma text node to underline, strikethrough, or remove decoration using the node ID.

Instructions

Set the text decoration 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>",
      "textDecoration": "<textDecoration>"
    },
    "name": "set_text_decoration"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the text node to modify
textDecorationYesText decoration type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.13

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Set,' implying mutation. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or behavior when the node is not a text node.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and gets to the point, though slightly sparse.

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?

For a simple mutation with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks explanation of return values or additional context about text decoration types.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the parameter names implicitly.

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 it sets the text decoration of a text node in Figma, using the verb 'Set' and specifying the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_text_align or set_text_case.

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 versus alternatives or any prerequisites. With many sibling set_text_* tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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