Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@echobt/figma-mcp

@echobt/figma-mcp

by echobt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_thumbnail

Retrieve a thumbnail image from a Figma .fig file. Optionally save it as a PNG to the filesystem.

Instructions

Get the document thumbnail image as a resource.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_thumbnail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesPath to the .fig file
outputPathNoOptional filesystem path to write the thumbnail PNG

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does without explaining implications, such as whether the tool accesses the file system, network, or has side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand potential risks or behaviors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, but it is minimal and lacks structure. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, but could be better organized with separate sections for behavior and parameters.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context, such as what the 'resource' entails, file format, size limits, or error cases. The current description leaves many unknowns for an agent to operate correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, merely restating the purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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), the resource (document thumbnail image), and the output type (resource). It uses a specific verb and noun, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vector or get_image.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_image or export_node_assets. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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