Set an image fill on a Figma node from a URL, raw base64, or local file, with FILL, FIT, CROP, or TILE scaling.
Set an IMAGE fill on a node from a URL (createImageAsync), raw base64 imageBytes, or a local image file via localPath (read as base64 server-side). scaleMode: FILL, FIT, CROP, TILE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It does disclose useful behavior: URLs go through createImageAsync and localPath files are read as base64 server-side. However, it does not say which node is targeted, whether an existing fill is replaced, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation, with no filler. Every clause carries information the schema does not.
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 a mutation tool with no annotations, an empty input schema, and no output schema, the description covers the image-source and scaleMode dimensions but leaves the target node, replacement semantics, and error behavior unstated. Adequate but with a notable gap.
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?
The input schema declares no properties, so the description is the only source of parameter information, and it compensates well by naming the three mutually distinct image sources and the four scaleMode enum values (FILL, FIT, CROP, TILE). It still omits whether the sources are mutually exclusive, which is required, and how the target node is identified.
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 ('Set an IMAGE fill on a node'), and the word 'IMAGE' plus the enumeration of scaleMode values implicitly separates it from the sibling fill tools figma_set_solid_fill and set_gradient_fill. An agent can identify the operation without opening 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?
The three input-source variants (URL, base64 imageBytes, localPath) are listed, which implies when each applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over figma_set_solid_fill or set_gradient_fill, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.