Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Talk to Figma MCP

Talk to Figma MCP

by kctw-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

set_gradient_fill

Apply a linear, radial, angular, or diamond gradient fill to a design node, specifying color stops and angle.

Instructions

Set a gradient fill on a node

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>",
      "stops": "<stops>"
    },
    "name": "set_gradient_fill"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
angleNoAngle of the gradient in degrees (for linear gradients)
stopsYesArray of gradient color stops
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to set the gradient on
gradientTypeNoType of gradientGRADIENT_LINEAR

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose effects. It only says 'set a gradient fill' but doesn't confirm it replaces existing fills, requires a node with a fill property, or if gradientType changes are reversible.

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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks structure. Could be expanded with key details without being verbose.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description fails to contextualize parameters like stops (array of objects) or angle (only for linear). No output schema, so more context 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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., explaining that stops positions must be sorted or that angle is only for linear.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'Set' and the resource 'gradient fill on a node'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_fill_color and set_image_fill by specifying gradient.

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 instead of alternatives like set_fill_color, nor prerequisites or context (e.g., node must have a fill area).

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