Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenCode Figma MCP

OpenCode Figma MCP

by yhoyoex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

remove_interactions

Delete all prototype interactions from a Figma node, or target only a specific trigger type such as click, hover, or press. Use it to clean unwanted flows before export or review.

Instructions

Remove prototype interactions from a node: all of them, or only those with a given trigger type

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_interactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesID of the node
triggerTypeNoOptional trigger type to remove; omit to remove all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about reversibility, permissions, or side effects of a destructive removal, and the 'all vs. trigger type' scoping it does mention is already stated in the triggerType schema field.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the two operating modes are stated economically in one clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter, schema-complete removal tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of any behavioral/safety context for a destructive operation with no annotations.

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%: nodeId is documented as 'ID of the node' and triggerType explicitly notes 'omit to remove all' with a full enum. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (prototype interactions) scoped to a node, which clearly positions it as the deletion counterpart to add_interaction/set_reactions. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by explaining the two removal modes (all vs. filtered by trigger type), but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like set_reactions or set_reactions-based overwrites, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the node must be a prototype/frame).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools