Skip to main content
Glama
KaiUweHella

figma-bridge-mcp

by KaiUweHella
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

figma_run

Destructive

Execute approved Figma commands to inspect, create, or update designs in Figma Desktop, with an optional non-mutating command preview.

Instructions

Run an approved command. See figma_reference {name:"capabilities"} or --help.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsYesCommand argv, e.g. ["canvas","info"].
forceNoAsset Export: bypass completed retry cache.
labelNo
confirmNoRequired by policy; omission is not a preview.
fileKeyNoFigma key/URL.
previewNoReturn a payload-free, non-mutating Command Plan.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / args / description
      Previous value: -"Engine subcommand and flags, e.g. [\"canvas\",\"info\"]."New value: +"Command argv, e.g. [\"canvas\",\"info\"]."
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Required for write commands when write-confirm mode is on."New value: +"Required by policy; omission is not a preview."
    • changedInput schema / properties / fileKey / description
      Previous value: -"Target connected file: bare key or Figma URL."New value: +"Figma key/URL."
    • addedInput schema / properties / force
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Asset Export: bypass completed retry cache.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / label / description
      Removed value: -"Optional audit-log intent note."
    • addedInput schema / properties / preview
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return a payload-free, non-mutating Command Plan.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds no behavioral nuance beyond 'approved.' It does not mention preview mode, the policy-required confirm flag, mutations, or consequences, so the description contributes little beyond the structured hints.

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?

One short sentence states the core behavior and immediately directs the agent to the authoritative capability reference. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The pointer to figma_reference and --help gives an agent a discovery path, and the schema covers most parameters, but the description alone leaves key operating context unclear: what commands exist, how approval is determined, and what preview/confirm semantics mean operationally. Given the destructive hint and lack of an output schema, more context would improve call correctness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the parameters are mostly self-documenting; the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. Per the high-coverage baseline, a 3 is appropriate rather than a lower score.

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 names a specific action ('Run an approved command') and distinguishes this as the executor tool while pointing to figma_reference for allowed commands. It is not a tautology, but the command space itself is left unspecified until the agent consults the reference.

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 instruction to see figma_reference {name:'capabilities'} or --help implies how to identify approved commands, and the word 'approved' imposes a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or what conditions disqualify a command.

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