Talk to Figma MCP

create_component_instance

Create an instance of a Figma component by specifying position and optional parent or component identifiers.

Instructions

Create an instance of a component 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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "create_component_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	Yes	X position
`y`	Yes	Y position
`parentId`	No	Optional parent node ID to append the instance to
`componentId`	No	Node ID of a local component to instantiate
`componentKey`	No	Key of the component to instantiate (for published components)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that this is a mutation operation, permission requirements, or how positioning works relative to the parent. The brief text omits important behavioral traits.

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 concise (one sentence) but too vague to be informative. It lacks substance despite being short, so it does not earn a higher score.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how the instance is created in the document structure. With 5 parameters, more detail is needed.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the tool description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not clarify relationships like mutual exclusivity of componentId and componentKey.

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 action 'create' and the resource 'instance of a component', and 'in Figma' specifies the domain. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_component_from_node' or 'clone_node', which could cause confusion.

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, such as when to use componentId vs componentKey, or prerequisites like an existing component. The description lacks context on appropriate usage scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server