Show or hide one or more Figma nodes, including children inside instances, by setting visibility overrides and reporting per-node success.
Show or hide one or more nodes (also nodes inside instances, e.g. 'I;', which creates a visibility override). Reports per-node success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | No | ID of a single node | |
| nodeIds | No | IDs of multiple nodes | |
| visible | Yes | true to show, false to hide |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that targeting a child inside an instance creates a visibility override, and that the result reports per-node success (helpful since there is no output schema). It does not state permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, or how the override interacts with existing overrides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Effectively a single front-loaded sentence: the core action comes first, the instance edge case is a parenthetical, and the return behavior closes it out. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the multi-node scope, the instance-override edge case, and the per-node result. It omits what happens when neither nodeId nor nodeIds is supplied despite only 'visible' being required, but is otherwise sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value by giving the ID syntax for targeting a child inside an instance ('I<instanceId>;<childId>'), which is not documented in the schema. It does not clarify the nodeId-vs-nodeIds selection rule beyond the plural phrasing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Show or hide one or more nodes', with the scope (single vs multiple) made clear. It adds the non-obvious case of nodes inside instances, so an agent understands the operation. It does not reference any sibling tool, though none of the listed siblings overlaps with visibility toggling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the purpose: call it to set visibility on one or more nodes. The instance-child example provides context for a tricky case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives such as set_selections or set_focus.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.