Skip to main content
Glama
ysocrius

Cursor Talk to Figma MCP

by ysocrius

delete_node

Delete a specific node from a Figma design by providing its node ID, enabling programmatic removal of design elements.

Instructions

Delete a node from Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to delete
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 explicitly says 'Delete', which implies a destructive operation, but it does not disclose consequences such as deletion of child nodes, permanence, undo behavior, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse. For a simple one-parameter tool, the length is appropriate.

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 that this is a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention single-node scope (versus 'delete_multiple_nodes'), side effects, or any prerequisites. The minimal information leaves an agent uncertain about important usage details.

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?

The input schema provides a full description of the single parameter 'nodeId' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Delete a node') and resource ('from Figma'), making it obvious what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'delete_multiple_nodes', which also deals with deletion. Adding 'single' or 'one' would distinguish it.

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. The sibling tool 'delete_multiple_nodes' suggests batch deletion, but the description does not mention this distinction or any other usage context.

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/ysocrius/Talk-to-Figma-Cursor'

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