figma-slides-mcp

by luan007

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Place Image

place_image

Insert an image into a Figma slide from a URL or raw bytes, creating a rectangle with image fill.

Instructions

Place an image from URL or bytes. Creates a rectangle with IMAGE fill.

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": "place_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	No
`y`	No
`url`	No	Image URL to fetch
`bytes`	No	Raw image bytes
`width`	No	Default: 400
`height`	No	Default: 300
`parentId`	Yes	Parent node ID
`scaleMode`	No	Default: FILL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation creates a rectangle with IMAGE fill, which is non-obvious. However, it does not address side effects, error handling, or interaction with parent nodes.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The action and key behavior are front-loaded.

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 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It omits coordinate system context, behavior when both url and bytes are supplied, and what the tool returns, making it incomplete for reliable usage.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'from URL or bytes,' which clarifies the url and bytes parameters, but does not add further semantic meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 (place), the resource (image), the sources (URL or bytes), and the outcome (rectangle with IMAGE fill). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like create_svg or create_video.

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 its use for placing images but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as replace_media or create_shape_with_text. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server