figma-slides-mcp

by luan007

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Create Video

create_video

Add a video node to a Figma Slide from a URL or raw bytes, supporting MP4, MOV, and WebM formats.

Instructions

Create a video node from URL or bytes (Slides only, MP4/MOV/WebM)

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>"
    },
    "name": "create_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	No
`y`	No
`url`	No	Video URL to fetch (MP4/MOV/WebM)
`data`	No	Raw video bytes
`width`	No
`height`	No
`parentId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Slides-only scope and supported formats, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a mutating operation (though 'create' implies it), nor does it reveal behavior like network fetching for URLs or handling of invalid bytes.

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?

The description is a single sentence that packs the essential details: action, source, scope, and formats. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits the meaning of the required parentId, the positioning/sizing parameters, and any error or return behavior. The context is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 only 29%, yet the description only adds meaning for url and data via 'from URL or bytes' and the format list. It fails to explain the required parentId or the optional positioning parameters (x, y, width, height), leaving most parameters semantically under-documented.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('video node'), and the input sources ('from URL or bytes'). It also specifies the scope ('Slides only') and formats ('MP4/MOV/WebM'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gif or place_image.

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?

The description implies usage for adding videos to slides and specifies format restrictions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

Deploy Server