Figma Local MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

export_node

Read-only

Render a Figma node through the local Plugin API as a PNG image or SVG text for design handoff, with PNG limited to 4096px per side and 8 MiB.

Instructions

Export a node through the local Plugin API as PNG image or SVG text. PNG output is limited to 4096 pixels per side and 8 MiB.

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": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "export_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`scale`	No
`format`	No	PNG
`nodeId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.4Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond the annotations: PNG output is capped at 4096 pixels per side and 8 MiB, which tells the agent when an export will fail or must be scaled down.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the actionable constraint. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 three-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the format choice and size limits but omits how the result is delivered (inline data vs. file path) and what 'scale' does. Adequate but with visible gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names the two format values (PNG/SVG) but says nothing about 'scale' or 'nodeId', leaving two of three parameters with no semantic guidance beyond types and bounds.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Export a node') plus the output formats (PNG/SVG) and the transport ('local Plugin API'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, though the operation is clearly distinct from get_node/update_node/delete_node.

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?

There is no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is told what the tool does but not when to reach for it over, say, a screenshot or get_node workflow.

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