Skip to main content
Glama
paragdesai1

Cursor Talk to Figma MCP

by paragdesai1

create_component_instance

Create component instances in Figma designs by specifying component keys and positioning coordinates.

Instructions

Create an instance of a component in Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
componentKeyYesKey of the component to instantiate
xYesX position
yYesY position

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function in the Figma plugin that imports a component by its key using figma.importComponentByKeyAsync, creates an instance, positions it, and adds it to the current page.
    async function createComponentInstance(params) {
      const { componentKey, x = 0, y = 0 } = params || {};
    
      if (!componentKey) {
        throw new Error("Missing componentKey parameter");
      }
    
      try {
        const component = await figma.importComponentByKeyAsync(componentKey);
        const instance = component.createInstance();
    
        instance.x = x;
        instance.y = y;
    
        figma.currentPage.appendChild(instance);
    
        return {
          id: instance.id,
          name: instance.name,
          x: instance.x,
          y: instance.y,
          width: instance.width,
          height: instance.height,
          componentId: instance.componentId,
        };
      } catch (error) {
        throw new Error(`Error creating component instance: ${error.message}`);
      }
    }
  • MCP server tool registration, including input schema (Zod) and thin proxy handler that forwards the command to the Figma plugin via sendCommandToFigma WebSocket proxy.
    server.tool(
      "create_component_instance",
      "Create an instance of a component in Figma",
      {
        componentKey: z.string().describe("Key of the component to instantiate"),
        x: z.number().describe("X position"),
        y: z.number().describe("Y position"),
      },
      async ({ componentKey, x, y }) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("create_component_instance", {
            componentKey,
            x,
            y,
          });
          const typedResult = result as any;
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(typedResult),
              }
            ]
          }
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error creating component instance: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                  }`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Input schema definition using Zod for validating componentKey, x, and y parameters.
      componentKey: z.string().describe("Key of the component to instantiate"),
      x: z.number().describe("X position"),
      y: z.number().describe("Y position"),
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether it's destructive to existing elements, error conditions (e.g., invalid component key), or what happens on success (e.g., returns a node ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, or return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to siblings that may have overlapping functionality.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters (componentKey, x, y). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining coordinate systems or component key formats. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('instance of a component in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_frame' or 'create_rectangle' by specifying it's for components, not basic shapes. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'component instance' entails (e.g., linked to a master component), which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing component key from 'get_local_components'), when not to use it (e.g., for non-component elements), or comparisons to siblings like 'clone_node' for duplication. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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