Flatten a Figma node into a single vector by specifying its node ID. Simplify complex groups or frames into a unified vector shape.
Flatten a node into a single vector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | Node to flatten |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'flatten a node into a single vector' and does not state whether the original node is replaced, whether the operation is destructive or undoable, or what is returned. For a likely mutation operation, this is a significant gap.
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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it easy to parse. It is concise, though somewhat under-specified.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify side effects and return behavior, but it does not. The low parameter complexity and fully documented parameter prevent a score of 1, but the missing consequences of a mutating operation make this incomplete for reliable agent use.
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 100%, and the parameter description 'Node to flatten' is clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the only parameter effectively.
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 states a specific operation ('Flatten') on a specific resource ('a node') and defines the intended result ('a single vector'). It is terse but not tautological, and it is distinguishable from sibling vector tools like create_vector or offset_path. It does not clarify which node types are valid, so it falls just 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?
The description gives no guidance about when to use flatten_node instead of related tools such as offset_path, boolean_operation, or create_vector. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection constraints, or when the operation is appropriate. The usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.