Replace every Figma component instance whose main component key matches a source key with a target key. Limit the scope with a root node and preview changes using dry-run.
Swap every instance whose main component key matches sourceComponentKey to targetComponentKey. Supports dryRun and a rootNodeId scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | ||
| rootNodeId | No | ||
| sourceComponentKey | Yes | ||
| targetComponentKey | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is bulk (potentially wide-reaching), that dryRun is available as a safety preview, and that rootNodeId limits scope. It omits permanence/undo behavior, what happens to unmatched keys, and whether partial failures are reported.
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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core bulk-swap behavior front-loaded ahead of the optional modifiers. Nothing redundant or buried.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It covers the core action and two modifiers but leaves out irreversibility, result reporting, and failure semantics for a bulk mutation that could affect many nodes.
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%, so the description must compensate. It names all four parameters and gives meaning to two (dryRun as preview, rootNodeId as scope filter), but supplies no key format, type, or default guidance for sourceComponentKey/targetComponentKey beyond the swap relationship.
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: swap every instance whose main component key matches sourceComponentKey to targetComponentKey. The bulk scope ('every instance') clearly separates it from the singular swap_instance_component sibling, though that sibling is never named. Purpose is unambiguous without needing the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the bulk matching condition and the mention of dryRun (preview) and a rootNodeId scope, which hints at when to constrain the blast radius. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the single-instance alternative, so the agent must infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.