Copy an existing Figma node, optionally offsetting its position and renaming the duplicate, so you can reuse designs without rebuilding them.
Create a copy of an existing node with optional position offset and name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dx | No | ||
| dy | No | ||
| name | No | Name for the copy. Defaults to the source name. | |
| nodeId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says a copy is created but does not disclose permissions needed, whether the copy is independent or linked, how children/components are handled, or any side effects of cloning.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and the optional parameters efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits return behavior, required permissions, and sufficient parameter detail for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It mentions an optional position offset and name, which loosely covers dx/dy and name, but it does not explain dx/dy units or coordinate space, and the required nodeId parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a copy of an existing node.' It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling clone_node_into_parent or explain boundary cases, but the core operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clone_node_into_parent or create_instance_from_instance. The mention of optional offset and name implies basic cloning, but no conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.