Figma Local MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reorder_nodes

Destructive

Move selected direct child layers within a page, frame, component, or section to a target index in the layer stack, where 0 is the back-most layer.

Instructions

Reorder direct child layers within one PAGE, FRAME, COMPONENT or SECTION. index 0 is the back-most layer.

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": {
      "parentId": "<parentId>",
      "nodeIds": "<nodeIds>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "reorder_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`index`	Yes
`nodeIds`	Yes
`parentId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.4Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: "index 0 is the back-most layer," which clarifies the z-order semantics of the operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded before the z-order detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive reorder operation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the core operation and index semantics but omits edge cases an agent would want: how the `nodeIds` array order maps to the final layout and what happens if a node is not a direct child of `parentId`.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters. It clarifies the crucial meaning of `index` (0 = back-most layer) but says nothing about `parentId` or `nodeIds`, leaving array ordering semantics and validation behavior undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb ("Reorder") and resource ("direct child layers") and constrains the scope to a single parent of type PAGE, FRAME, COMPONENT or SECTION. This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling reparent_nodes, which moves nodes across parents, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to an alternative such as reparent_nodes. The scope constraint ("within one ...") hints that it stays inside a single parent but stops short of stating that usage condition.

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