Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Penpot MCP Server

Penpot MCP Server

by zcube
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_font

Rename an existing font in Penpot by supplying team ID, font ID, and the new name. Helps manage font assets without manual UI navigation.

Instructions

Update a font's name

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "fontId": "<fontId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_font"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNew font name
fontIdYesFont ID to update
teamIdYesTeam ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the font's name is updated, but gives no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or impact on related resources. This is a sparse disclosure 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. It earns a 4 because it is appropriately compact for such a simple operation, but it could benefit from additional context.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the full burden of contextual completeness. It explains the core action but omits any details about return values, errors, or operational prerequisites. For a mutation tool, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (name, fontId, teamId), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a font's name' uses a specific verb (update) and resource (font) with the exact attribute being modified (name). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_font and create_font_variant, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, edge cases, or exclusions. It merely states the action without contextualizing it within the broader workflow of font management.

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