Figma Local MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_node

Destructive

Remove a scene node and all its descendants from a Figma design. Pages and the document cannot be removed; Figma Undo remains available.

Instructions

Delete a scene node and all its descendants. Cannot delete pages or the document. Figma Undo is available.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nodeId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.4Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds two traits annotations cannot express: the deletion is cascading (descendants go too) and it is recoverable via Figma Undo. That recoverability note is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then constraints, then recoverability. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers blast radius and reversibility adequately. The only real omission is any characterization of the nodeId argument.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, nodeId, which the description never mentions. The field name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description contributes nothing about identifier format, scope, or whether the node may be a root-level frame.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (delete a scene node) and immediately bounds the scope to the node and all its descendants. The exclusions ('Cannot delete pages or the document') further separate it from the page/document siblings in the tool set.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear when-not condition (pages and the document cannot be deleted), which is genuine usage guidance for an agent scanning candidates. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the page/document case, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not/alternatives routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.