Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
figma-proxy-mcp

figma-proxy-mcp

by Semmargl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

get_figma_file

Fetch Figma file data by file ID and convert it into normalized, agent-friendly IR with Tailwind themes and CSS variables for development.

Instructions

Get Figma file data by file ID and transform it for development

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>"
    },
    "name": "get_figma_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdYesFigma file ID (from the URL: figma.com/file/{fileId}/...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether results are cached, how large the payload may be, whether the file must be authenticated, or what 'transform it for development' actually does to the data. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing beyond that is stated.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and key scoping parameter front-loaded. No waste, though the trailing 'transform it for development' is vague enough to be near-filler rather than information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must convey behavior and return shape, and it does not. The undefined 'transform it for development' leaves the agent unable to predict what it will receive or how expensive the call is.

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 100% and the schema already explains that fileId is extracted from the Figma URL. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond 'by file ID', so the baseline 3 for high-coverage single-parameter schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get Figma file data) scoped by file ID, and hints at a transformation step. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_figma_component or export_svg, but never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative sibling tools (get_figma_component, get_cached_components) that an agent might pick instead. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for whole-file retrieval.

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