Figma Local MCP

by lostpunk

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

set_selection

Destructive

Select up to 100 nodes from the same page with optional focus to batch edit or inspect Figma designs.

Instructions

Select up to 100 nodes from the same page and optionally focus them.

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": {
      "nodeIds": "<nodeIds>"
    },
    "name": "set_selection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`focus`	No
`nodeIds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.4Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the 100-node and same-page constraints but never says that this call replaces the current selection or that focus defaults to true — the destructive aspect is left to the annotation alone.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and its limit. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the definition is serviceable but thin: it omits required-parameter status, the focus default, and the fact that existing selection is overwritten.

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 must compensate. It does explain focus ('optionally focus them') and nodeIds ('up to 100 nodes from the same page'), covering both parameters at a high level, but omits that nodeIds is required, that focus defaults to true, and the 200-char string limit.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Select ... nodes' with scope 'from the same page' and a stated cap of 100. It implicitly separates itself from the read-side sibling get_selection, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the 'same page' constraint and 100-node cap hint at when the call is valid, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_selection for reading existing selection state.

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