Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
figma-slides-mcp

figma-slides-mcp

by luan007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Group Nodes

group_nodes

Group multiple nodes into a single container to apply transformations collectively and keep your slide structure organized.

Instructions

Group multiple nodes together

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": "group_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdsYesNode IDs to group
parentIdNoParent for the group

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing side effects. It merely states the action without mentioning whether grouping creates a new node, modifies existing parent-child relationships, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation operation.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording, earning its place. However, it is under-specified, reflecting a lack of substance rather than deliberate efficiency.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain what 'grouping' entails, the role of parentId, or the expected outcome, leaving significant context gaps.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (nodeIds and parentId) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 "Group multiple nodes together" clearly states the action (grouping) and the resource (nodes), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool ungroup_node. However, it lacks detail about the resulting structure (e.g., creating a new parent group node) that would fully disambiguate its scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ungroup_node or reparent_node. The description is purely behavioral with no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools