Skip to main content
Glama

set_annotation

Add or edit annotations on Figma design elements to document specifications, feedback, or implementation details directly within the MCP server.

Instructions

Create or update an annotation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to annotate
annotationIdNoThe ID of the annotation to update (if updating existing annotation)
labelMarkdownYesThe annotation text in markdown format
categoryIdNoThe ID of the annotation category
propertiesNoAdditional properties for the annotation

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'set_annotation' MCP tool, including description, input schema, and handler function that proxies the call to the Figma plugin.
    server.tool(
      "set_annotation",
      "Create or update an annotation",
      {
        nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to annotate"),
        annotationId: z.string().optional().describe("The ID of the annotation to update (if updating existing annotation)"),
        labelMarkdown: z.string().describe("The annotation text in markdown format"),
        categoryId: z.string().optional().describe("The ID of the annotation category"),
        properties: z.array(z.object({
          type: z.string()
        })).optional().describe("Additional properties for the annotation")
      },
      async ({ nodeId, annotationId, labelMarkdown, categoryId, properties }) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("set_annotation", {
            nodeId,
            annotationId,
            labelMarkdown,
            categoryId,
            properties
          });
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(result)
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error setting annotation: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`
              }
            ]
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • The handler function executes the tool logic by sending the annotation parameters to the underlying Figma plugin command 'set_annotation' and returns the result or error.
      async ({ nodeId, annotationId, labelMarkdown, categoryId, properties }) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("set_annotation", {
            nodeId,
            annotationId,
            labelMarkdown,
            categoryId,
            properties
          });
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(result)
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error setting annotation: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`
              }
            ]
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the set_annotation tool.
    {
      nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to annotate"),
      annotationId: z.string().optional().describe("The ID of the annotation to update (if updating existing annotation)"),
      labelMarkdown: z.string().describe("The annotation text in markdown format"),
      categoryId: z.string().optional().describe("The ID of the annotation category"),
      properties: z.array(z.object({
        type: z.string()
      })).optional().describe("Additional properties for the annotation")
    },
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. While 'create or update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('create or update') and resource ('an annotation'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.

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 aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools with more descriptive names (e.g., 'get_annotations' clearly indicates read-only).

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between nodeId and annotationId, or what 'properties' might contain). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('create or update') and resource ('an annotation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_annotations' (read-only) and 'set_multiple_annotations' (batch operation). However, it doesn't specify what an annotation is in this context (e.g., a note attached to a design node), leaving some ambiguity about the resource.

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 when to choose 'set_annotation' over 'set_multiple_annotations' for batch operations, or clarify if it's for single annotations only. There's also no information about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing node) or error conditions.

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/pipethedev/Talk-to-Figma-MCP'

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