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

figma-slides-mcp

by luan007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Set Slide Theme

set_slide_theme

Apply a theme to a slide in Figma Slides using the slide ID and theme ID. Change the visual design of a specific slide.

Instructions

Apply a theme to a slide

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>",
      "themeId": "<themeId>"
    },
    "name": "set_slide_theme"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slideIdYes
themeIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden but offers only a terse statement of the action. It does not disclose side effects, requirements (e.g., valid slide/theme IDs), or behavior when the operation fails, leaving the agent without critical context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and merely restates the title, providing no additional structured information. It is concise but under-specified, lacking the detail that would make it useful.

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's simplicity, the description is still too sparse. It omits return value information, error behavior, and the relationship to available themes, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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% and the description does not explain slideId or themeId. Their meaning is only inferable from their names, which is insufficient for agents to correctly supply parameters.

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 identifies the action (apply) and the target (theme to a slide), making the tool's purpose evident. While it doesn't elaborate on the scope or distinguish it from sibling tools like list_themes, the verb and object are specific enough to avoid confusion.

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, such as whether themeId should be obtained from list_themes or how it interacts with other slide-level operations.

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