Skip to main content
Glama
sso-ss

figma-unified-mcp

by sso-ss

figma_create_text

Create a text node in Figma with specified content, position, typography, fill, and alignment settings for adding labels and annotations to designs.

Instructions

Create a text node. Accepts 'text' or 'content' for the string value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
nameNo
textNoAlias for 'content' — the text string
widthNo
contentNoThe text string (alias: 'text')
opacityNo
fontSizeNo
parentIdNo
fillColorNoColor as hex string "#RRGGBB" or object {r,g,b,a?} with 0-1 values
fontStyleNoOverride font style name, e.g. 'Bold Italic'. If omitted, derived from fontWeight.
fontFamilyNoInter
fontWeightNo100=Thin,200=ExtraLight,300=Light,400=Regular,500=Medium,600=SemiBold,700=Bold,800=ExtraBold,900=Black
lineHeightNo
letterSpacingNo
textAutoResizeNo
textAlignVerticalNo
textAlignHorizontalNo
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that 'text' and 'content' are accepted aliases. It does not mention side effects, defaults, required parent context, or any other behavioral traits.

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 two sentences front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 an 18-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is grossly inadequate. It lacks information about positioning, defaults, return values, and node hierarchy, making it hard for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 28%, so the description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds value by clarifying the 'text'/'content' alias, but it leaves the other 16 parameters entirely unexplained in natural language.

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 the action 'Create' and the resource 'text node', which distinguishes it from sibling create tools like figma_create_rectangle or figma_create_line. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 such as figma_set_text_content or other create node tools. The usage context is entirely implied by the name and short description.

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/sso-ss/figma-unified-mcp'

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