Skip to main content
Glama
angelostark

figma-drive

by angelostark
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The three tools are mostly distinct: export_figma_frames only exports, upload_to_drive only uploads, and figma_to_drive combines both with parsing. There is slight overlap due to figma_to_drive covering the other two, but descriptions clarify the pipeline's additional functionality.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Two tools follow verb_noun snake_case (export_figma_frames, upload_to_drive), but figma_to_drive breaks pattern by using a description phrase. Consistent otherwise.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is on the lower side but appropriate for a focused figma-to-drive integration. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the pipeline reduces redundancy.

    Completeness3/5

    Covers the core export-upload workflow, but lacks features like listing frames or managing Drive files. The pipeline assumes a specific naming convention, which may limit flexibility.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions automatic parsing of frame names but does not detail other behaviors such as authentication requirements (though credentialsPath is in schema), error handling, overwrite behavior, or what happens on success.

    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?

    The description is concise with two sentences that convey the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary action, though the language is informal and could be better structured.

    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?

    As a pipeline tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context on the overall process, return values, and potential side effects. It lacks completeness for effective agent decision-making.

    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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are complete in the schema. The description adds marginal context by reiterating the frame name format and parsing logic, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

    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 it is a complete pipeline that exports frames from Figma and uploads to Google Drive, with automatic parsing of frame names. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (export_figma_frames and upload_to_drive) which would handle each step separately.

    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 does not explicitly state when to use this combined pipeline versus the individual sibling tools. It implies usage for the combined workflow but lacks guidance on prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternative scenarios.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic batching to avoid timeouts, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors like API rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects.

    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?

    Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives implementation detail. No redundant content. Front-loaded with the core action.

    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?

    There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., file paths, success status). It mentions exporting to a directory but does not specify the return value. The schema covers all parameters adequately.

    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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the file key extraction hint but does not explain node IDs or provide additional context beyond the schema. It adds marginal value.

    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 tool exports Figma frames as high-quality PNGs with automatic batching. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like figma_to_drive.

    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?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The mention of automatic batching to avoid timeouts is a usage hint, but there is no when-not-to-use or reference to sibling tools.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: automatic folder hierarchy navigation, creation of missing folders, dry-run functionality, and credential requirement. This provides sufficient transparency for a file upload tool.

    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?

    Description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

    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?

    No output schema, and description does not mention return values, error handling, file size limits, or permissions. While the tool is simple, more context could be provided for robustness.

    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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal meaning beyond schema—it explains the folder hierarchy implied by clientName and date, but does not elaborate on file types or credentials path.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Description clearly states the tool uploads files to a specific client's Google Drive folder, detailing the automatic navigation of a hierarchy and folder creation. It distinguishes from siblings (Figma-related tools) by focusing on Drive upload.

    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?

    Description implies when to use (when uploading to Drive with date hierarchy) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Siblings are different enough that confusion is minimal, but no guidance is provided.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

stark-figma-drive-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

stark-figma-drive-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/angelostark/stark-figma-drive-mcp'

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