@echobt/figma-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_image

Retrieve a specific image from a Figma .fig file using its 40-character hex hash. Optionally write the image bytes to a given filesystem path.

Instructions

Get a specific image from the .fig file as a resource. Use the hash from list_images.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "imageHash": "<imageHash>"
    },
    "name": "get_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filePath`	Yes	Path to the .fig file
`imageHash`	Yes	The 40-character hex hash of the image
`outputPath`	No	Optional filesystem path to write the image bytes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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. It does not disclose the return format when outputPath is omitted (presumably raw bytes?), any side effects, or error conditions. The term 'as a resource' is vague.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a critical usage hint. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple getter with 3 parameters, the description covers the core function and parameter hints. However, it lacks explanation of the return value (especially important since no output schema exists) and does not address potential edge cases like missing file or invalid hash.

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 value by clarifying that imageHash comes from list_images, but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get a specific image'), the resource ('.fig file'), and key usage hint ('Use the hash from list_images'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_images.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly mentions using the hash from list_images, providing a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't discuss when not to use or compare to siblings, the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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