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

figma-slides-mcp

by luan007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Move Slide to Row

move_slide_to_row

Move a slide to a different row in a Figma Slides deck. Specify the target row and optional index to control its position.

Instructions

Move a slide to a different row

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": {
      "slideId": "<slideId>",
      "rowId": "<rowId>"
    },
    "name": "move_slide_to_row"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexNoPosition within row
rowIdYes
slideIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the generic action and gives no details about side effects, whether the slide is moved or copied, failure conditions, or how the move interacts with the existing row order. This is minimal and insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, effectively using the limited words to state the core action.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It lacks important contextual details such as whether the move is relative, how the index positions the slide, what happens to the previous row, and any return values. The description is far from complete for safe invocation.

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 low (33%), and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The names slideId and rowId are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description does not explain their roles or the optional index parameter. The description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Move a slide') and the target ('to a different row'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like reorder_slides or reparent_node, so it misses the explicit distinction needed for a 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of the row), ordering semantics, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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