Create a Figma SECTION node to group related layers or designs; optionally set its name, position, dimensions, fill color, section properties, and parent node.
Create a SECTION node. Optional fillColor {r,g,b,a}, sectionProperties (e.g. {sectionType}), and parentNodeId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| fillColor | No | ||
| parentNodeId | No | ||
| sectionProperties | No |
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 the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about permissions, defaults for the optional fields, what coordinates/size semantics apply, whether the new section is returned or selected, or whether it is undoable.
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?
Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently written, though the terse style is what leaves the parameter gaps rather than compensating for them.
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?
For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum explain the coordinate/size semantics, the meaning of parentNodeId (including the default), and what sectionProperties accepts.
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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, and the description only touches fillColor, sectionProperties, and parentNodeId. The five geometry/name parameters (x, y, name, width, height) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving required-for-correct-use meaning unstated.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a SECTION node") and names the constructor-style optional fields, so an agent can immediately tell it is a creation tool. It does not differentiate itself from nearby creators such as create_frame or create_rectangle, nor from the sibling set_section_properties, so it falls short of a 5.
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 create_frame, create_rectangle, or set_section_properties. No prerequisites, no placement context, no mention of what happens if parentNodeId is omitted. Only implied usage from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.