Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenCode Figma MCP

OpenCode Figma MCP

by yhoyoex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

rename_node

Rename a Figma node by passing its ID and new name, keeping layer and frame labels accurate so designs stay organized and easy to identify.

Instructions

Rename a node in Figma

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": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe new name for the node
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to rename

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a node is renamed and does not mention side effects, return behavior, reversibility, or failure cases. For a mutating operation, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and target.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and the complete parameter schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks some behavioral context, such as return/error behavior, but that is a minor gap for such a simple operation.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but it does not need to; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'rename' with the resource 'node in Figma,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like move_node, clone_node, and delete_node.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to change a node's name. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or comparison with alternatives, so the usage guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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