Skip to main content
Glama
andreycretsu

Cursor Talk to Figma MCP

by andreycretsu

export_node_as_image

Export design elements from Figma as images in PNG, JPG, SVG, or PDF formats for use in documentation, presentations, or development workflows.

Instructions

Export a node as an image from Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to export
formatNoExport format
scaleNoExport scale

Implementation Reference

  • This is the complete MCP tool definition including registration, input schema validation using Zod, and the handler function that executes the tool logic by forwarding the export request to the Figma plugin via WebSocket and returning the image data.
    // Export Node as Image Tool
    server.tool(
      "export_node_as_image",
      "Export a node as an image from Figma",
      {
        nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to export"),
        format: z
          .enum(["PNG", "JPG", "SVG", "PDF"])
          .optional()
          .describe("Export format"),
        scale: z.number().positive().optional().describe("Export scale"),
      },
      async ({ nodeId, format, scale }) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("export_node_as_image", {
            nodeId,
            format: format || "PNG",
            scale: scale || 1,
          });
          const typedResult = result as { imageData: string; mimeType: string };
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "image",
                data: typedResult.imageData,
                mimeType: typedResult.mimeType || "image/png",
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error exporting node as image: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                  }`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write/export operation but doesn't disclose whether this consumes API credits, has rate limits, requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid node ID). The description is technically accurate but lacks operational context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a straightforward export tool.

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?

For a mutation tool (export generates output) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., image data, download link, status), error conditions, or practical constraints. The context signals indicate this tool has behavioral complexity that isn't addressed.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (nodeId, format, scale). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb ('Export') and resource ('a node as an image from Figma'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_node_info' (read-only) or 'delete_node' (destructive), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other export-related tools since none are listed among siblings.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid node ID), constraints (e.g., export limits), or related operations (e.g., using 'get_node_info' first to verify node existence).

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/andreycretsu/cursor-talk-to-figma-mcp-main'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server