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

figma-free-mcp

by haju-xp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

set_text_style_id

Apply a text style to any text node in Figma by providing the node ID and style ID. Update text formatting without manual edits.

Instructions

Apply a text style to 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>",
      "textStyleId": "<textStyleId>"
    },
    "name": "set_text_style_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the text node to modify
textStyleIdYesThe ID of the text style to apply

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, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without explaining side effects, reversibility, or failure conditions (e.g., what happens if the node is not a text node or the style ID is invalid).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence) and gets to the point, but it lacks structure and is arguably too brief, missing opportunities to add value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple mutation tool with two parameters, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no output schema, the agent is left uninformed about return values or success/failure indicators. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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%, with each parameter described in the schema (nodeId and textStyleId). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Clearly states the action ('Apply a text style') and the target resource ('text node in Figma'). The verb and resource are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like apply_design_system, which might also apply styles, but the name set_text_style_id makes the intent clear.

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 (e.g., set_font_name, apply_design_system). No prerequisites or context about required node type or style existence are mentioned.

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