Skip to main content
Glama
Rachit0-glitch

Unified Figma MCP

by Rachit0-glitch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Unified Figma MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • local-figma-connector

      raslanismail87
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients like Codex to inspect, create, update, and export Figma designs through a local desktop plugin and bridge.
      MIT

    • Writable Figma MCP Bridge

      chenyiwanshishen-source
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible AI clients to read and modify the user's currently open Figma file by executing JavaScript in Figma's sandbox, all through a local bridge with status monitoring, node jumping, and automatic rollback on errors.
      1
      MIT

    • Figma Local MCP Bridge

      IbrahimElmourchidi
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Manages a local bridge server that exposes Figma design capabilities to AI agents like Copilot, Claude Code, and others through MCP tools, with plugin build and lifecycle controls in VS Code.
      MIT

    • pholly-figma-mcp

      mubzie
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Local-first MCP bridge for live Figma documents, enabling design inspection, editing, asset export, component authoring, and variable management through a plugin and WebSocket server without consuming Figma REST API requests.
      1
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    unified_status and unified_active_backend clearly overlap—both report active backend detection, making one redundant. unified_backends and unified_probe_backend are more distinct, but boundaries between status, backends, and probing are not crisp, causing potential misselection.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the 'unified_' prefix and use snake_case, creating a predictable pattern. Minor inconsistency exists because three are noun-based (status, backends, active_backend) while probe_backend is verb+noun, but overall naming remains coherent and easily scannable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is within the ideal range for a focused server, but the overlap between status and active_backend reduces efficiency. Still, the count is not excessive and each tool has a named purpose, even if some purposes are redundant.

    Completeness4/5

    The server appears scoped to backend status and diagnostic coverage; it includes health normalization, capability listing, active detection, and probing. It lacks operations like switching backends or configuration, but for a read-only status server, coverage is largely sufficient.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources