Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Figma Bridge MCP

Figma Bridge MCP

by Halil-KAPLAN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

figma_export_node

Export a Figma node as PNG, SVG, or PDF in base64 format for use in external applications. Specify node ID, format, and scale.

Instructions

Export a node as PNG/SVG (returns base64)

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": "figma_export_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scaleNo
formatNoPNG
nodeIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only notes base64 return, lacking details on side effects, permissions, error handling (e.g., missing node), or whether operation is read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

Very short (1 sentence) but at the expense of missing important details like additional formats and parameter info. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary clarity.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain scale, full format options, or output structure, making it inadequate for confident tool selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage 0% and description adds no parameter explanations. Scale, format enum (including hidden PDF), and nodeId are not described. For 3 parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

Description clearly states 'Export a node' and specifies PNG/SVG formats and base64 output. However, it omits PDF (present in enum), which slightly reduces completeness. Differentiates from sibling tools like figma_get_node by emphasizing export/rendering.

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 on when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., figma_get_node for properties vs export for images). The purpose is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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