Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Talk to Figma MCP

Talk to Figma MCP

by kctw-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

set_reactions

Create interactive prototypes by setting click, hover, and other reactions on Figma nodes.

Instructions

Set prototype interactions (reactions) on a Figma node. Allows creating click-to-navigate, hover, and other prototype interactions.

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>",
      "reactions": "<reactions>"
    },
    "name": "set_reactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to set reactions on
reactionsYesArray of reactions to set on the node

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether reactions are replaced or appended, if the operation is irreversible, or any side effects. 'Set' is vague about overwriting semantics.

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?

Two sentences, clear and front-loaded with the primary action. Could be slightly more concise but effectively communicates the core functionality.

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?

Given the complexity of prototype reactions (nested objects with triggers, actions, transitions), the description lacks details on behavior (e.g., replacement vs. append, validation, error handling). Output schema is absent, but for a setter this is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'reactions' parameter as creating prototype interactions, but does not add details beyond the schema.

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' and the resource 'prototype interactions (reactions)' on a Figma node, with examples of interactions (click-to-navigate, hover). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_reactions.

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., when to use set_reactions vs. modifying reactions individually). Does not mention prerequisites like node selection or permissions.

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