Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
figma-slides-mcp

figma-slides-mcp

by luan007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Export Node

export_node

Export any node to PNG, JPG, SVG, or PDF with optional scaling.

Instructions

Export any node to PNG, JPG, SVG, or PDF

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scaleNoScale factor. Default: 1
formatNoDefault: PNG
nodeIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return type, whether the export is a download/URL/base64, scale behavior, or any side effects. The description only lists formats, leaving important operational details undisclosed.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core capability and supported formats. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the caller receives and any relevant conditions. It also fails to clarify how this differs from the screenshot and media-creation siblings. The information provided is minimal and leaves important gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 already documents scale and format with defaults, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds little beyond 'any node' to clarify the required nodeId, but the parameter name and schema context make it reasonably clear. It does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented nodeId, but the coverage is not critically low.

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 ('Export'), the target resource ('any node'), and the supported output formats ('PNG, JPG, SVG, or PDF'). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like screenshot_slide or create_gif.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Several sibling tools produce image/media outputs (e.g., screenshot_slide, create_gif, create_video), but there is no mention of when export_node is preferred or when another tool should be used.

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