Skip to main content
Glama
neozhehan

Figma Edit MCP

by neozhehan

manage_style

Create or update Figma named styles (Text, Paint, Effect, Grid) by specifying type, name, and properties via JSON. Provide styleId to update an existing style.

Instructions

Creates named styles (Text, Paint, Effect, Grid) or updates an existing style if styleId is provided.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesType of style to create or update
nameYesName of the style
descriptionNoDescription of the style
propertiesJsonNoJSON string containing style properties: {fontName?: {family, style}, fontSize?: number, paints?: [{type, color?, opacity?, visible?}], effects?: [{type, visible?, color?, offset?, radius?, spread?}], layoutGrids?: [{pattern, sectionSize?, visible?, color?}]}
styleIdNoID of the style to update (if not creating a new one)
bindVariablesNoMap of field names to variable IDs (to bind) or null (to unbind). For PAINT styles, valid fields include 'color'. For TEXT styles, fields include 'fontSize', 'fontFamily', etc.
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description states create/update behavior but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or side effects. With zero annotation coverage, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the core functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description matches the schema, it lacks usage scenarios, error conditions, or examples. For a tool with 6 params and nested objects, additional context would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with full parameter descriptions. The description adds little beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it creates named styles for specific types (Text, Paint, Effect, Grid) and updates if styleId is provided. This verb+resource pair is distinct from sibling tools like apply_style or get_styles.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The description implies use for creating/updating styles, but doesn't mention when not to use (e.g., for applying styles) or alternative tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/neozhehan/figma-edit-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server