No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 112 tools
Most tools have a clearly distinct target, and descriptions go out of their way to cross-reference near-neighbors (get_node vs get_design_context, set_text vs set_text_properties vs set_text_range, rename_node vs rename_page vs batch_rename_nodes). Still, there is genuine overlap in the read surface: get_document, get_node, get_design_context, get_nodes_info, get_selection, get_metadata, scan_text_nodes, scan_nodes_by_types and search_nodes all read nodes with subtle scope/detail differences that require careful reading to pick among. That is a lot of overlapping retrieval tools in one namespace.
The verb_noun snake_case convention is followed nearly everywhere (set_fills, create_frame, delete_nodes, bind_variable_to_paint, get_design_context). A couple of compound names (find_replace_text, combine_as_variants) are still readable and in-pattern. No camelCase or style drift.
112 tools is a severe mismatch for a single MCP surface. Even with the batch and map tools justified, the read/scan/node-creation/style/variable/motion splits push this far past what an agent can hold in working context, and the count itself creates selection noise independent of any individual description.
Coverage is exhaustive: creation, mutation, deletion, grouping, variables/modes, styles, prototyping reactions, Motion keyframes, screenshots/exports, project scanning and Figma↔code mapping, plus an atomic batch wrapper. I can't identify a meaningful lifecycle gap for a Figma automation server.