Skip to main content
Glama
paragdesai1

Cursor Talk to Figma MCP

by paragdesai1

clone_node

Duplicate Figma design elements by cloning nodes to new positions, enabling rapid design iteration and component reuse.

Instructions

Clone an existing node in Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to clone
xNoNew X position for the clone
yNoNew Y position for the clone

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the clone_node tool logic in the Figma plugin: retrieves node by ID, clones it using Figma's node.clone() API, optionally repositions the clone, appends to the original parent, and returns clone details.
      const { nodeId, x, y } = params || {};
    
      if (!nodeId) {
        throw new Error("Missing nodeId parameter");
      }
    
      const node = await figma.getNodeByIdAsync(nodeId);
      if (!node) {
        throw new Error(`Node not found with ID: ${nodeId}`);
      }
    
      // Clone the node
      const clone = node.clone();
    
      // If x and y are provided, move the clone to that position
      if (x !== undefined && y !== undefined) {
        if (!("x" in clone) || !("y" in clone)) {
          throw new Error(`Cloned node does not support position: ${nodeId}`);
        }
        clone.x = x;
        clone.y = y;
      }
    
      // Add the clone to the same parent as the original node
      if (node.parent) {
        node.parent.appendChild(clone);
      } else {
        figma.currentPage.appendChild(clone);
      }
    
      return {
        id: clone.id,
        name: clone.name,
        x: "x" in clone ? clone.x : undefined,
        y: "y" in clone ? clone.y : undefined,
        width: "width" in clone ? clone.width : undefined,
        height: "height" in clone ? clone.height : undefined,
      };
    }
  • Registers the 'clone_node' MCP tool, defining its input schema (nodeId required, x/y optional), description, and proxy handler that sends the command to the Figma plugin via WebSocket and formats the response.
    server.tool(
      "clone_node",
      "Clone an existing node in Figma",
      {
        nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to clone"),
        x: z.number().optional().describe("New X position for the clone"),
        y: z.number().optional().describe("New Y position for the clone")
      },
      async ({ nodeId, x, y }) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma('clone_node', { nodeId, x, y });
          const typedResult = result as { name: string, id: string };
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Cloned node "${typedResult.name}" with new ID: ${typedResult.id}${x !== undefined && y !== undefined ? ` at position (${x}, ${y})` : ''}`
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error cloning node: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`
              }
            ]
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Zod schema defining input parameters for clone_node tool: nodeId (string, required), x and y (number, optional).
    {
      nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to clone"),
      x: z.number().optional().describe("New X position for the clone"),
      y: z.number().optional().describe("New Y position for the clone")
    },
  • Dispatch case in Figma plugin's handleCommand switch that routes 'clone_node' commands to the cloneNode implementation function.
    case "clone_node":
      return await cloneNode(params);
  • Includes 'clone_node' in FigmaCommand type union for TypeScript type safety in command handling.
    | "clone_node"
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Clone') which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the original node is affected, rate limits, error conditions, or what the clone inherits from the original. This leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward cloning operation and gets directly to the point.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what properties the clone inherits, whether positioning is required, what happens if x/y aren't specified, or what the return value contains. Given the complexity of node operations in Figma, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (nodeId, x, y positions). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value.

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 ('Clone') and resource ('an existing node in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_component_instance' or 'create_frame' which also create new nodes, leaving some ambiguity about when cloning is preferred over creation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_frame' or 'create_rectangle'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing node), exclusions, or typical scenarios where cloning is appropriate versus creating from scratch.

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/paragdesai1/parag-Figma-MCP'

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