Render a Figma node as PNG, JPG, SVG, or PDF and save it to disk, enabling AI agents to use design assets in code.
Render a node to PNG/JPG/SVG/PDF and save it to disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scale | No | Only for PNG/JPG | |
| format | No | PNG | |
| nodeId | Yes | Node id ("1:2" or "1-2") or a Figma URL containing ?node-id= | |
| outPath | No |
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. 'Save it to disk' usefully signals a filesystem write, but it omits where files land, whether existing files are overwritten, required auth/scopes, and any rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; every clause (verb, formats, destination) carries information.
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 tool that writes files, with no output schema, no annotations, and one fully undocumented parameter (outPath), the description leaves the destination path semantics and overwrite behavior unaddressed. Too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 50% (nodeId and scale are documented, format is self-describing via enum), so a 3 is the baseline. The description only echoes the format enum and adds nothing about outPath, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 (render), resource (node), output formats, and the side effect (save to disk). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like figma_export_json and figma_export_image_fills, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over figma_export_json or figma_export_image_fills, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the format list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.