Skip to main content
Glama
paragdesai1

Cursor Talk to Figma MCP

by paragdesai1

delete_node

Remove design elements from Figma files using node IDs to manage and update visual content.

Instructions

Delete a node from Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The full implementation of the 'delete_node' MCP tool. This includes the registration via server.tool(), the input schema requiring a nodeId string, and the handler function that sends a 'delete_node' command to the underlying Figma plugin via WebSocket (sendCommandToFigma), handles success/error responses, and returns markdown content to the user.
    server.tool(
      "delete_node",
      "Delete a node from Figma",
      {
        nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to delete"),
      },
      async ({ nodeId }) => {
        try {
          await sendCommandToFigma("delete_node", { nodeId });
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Deleted node with ID: ${nodeId}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error deleting node: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                  }`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Zod schema for the delete_node tool input parameters.
    {
      nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to delete"),
    },
  • Registration of the delete_node tool in the MCP server using server.tool() method.
    server.tool(
      "delete_node",
      "Delete a node from Figma",
      {
        nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to delete"),
      },
      async ({ nodeId }) => {
        try {
          await sendCommandToFigma("delete_node", { nodeId });
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Deleted node with ID: ${nodeId}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error deleting node: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                  }`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to child nodes. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with a single clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'delete' means in this context (permanent? moves to trash?), what the response looks like, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects. The combination of destructive operation with minimal description creates significant gaps.

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% with the single parameter 'nodeId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a node from Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'delete_multiple_nodes' which handles multiple deletions, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 like 'delete_multiple_nodes' for batch operations or other deletion-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or when this specific single-node deletion is appropriate.

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