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

figma-slides-mcp

by luan007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Replace Media

replace_media

Replace media content in a video or image node within Figma Slides. Provide the node ID and new data to update the visual asset.

Instructions

Replace media content of a video/image node

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": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "replace_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
nodeIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only implies mutation via the word 'replace'. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires existing media, what happens to the old content, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, but it is so sparse that it sacrifices necessary context, making it not fully effective despite its brevity.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should reveal the role of 'data' and any constraints. It only provides a high-level action, leaving the tool's proper invocation unclear. The ambiguity of 'data' as an array of numbers makes this significantly incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

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. However, it does not explain the 'data' parameter (an array of numbers) or 'nodeId' beyond obvious type names. No parameter-level meaning is provided.

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 tool replaces media content on a video/image node, using a specific verb and resource. It is not ambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'place_image' or 'create_video', which also deal with media.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only says what it does, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is a complete lack of usage guidance.

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