Local Figma MCP

download_assets

Download Figma renders and image assets to local files and return their paths, avoiding expiring URLs so clients can reference stable resources.

Instructions

Return paths to actual locally downloaded reference renders and image resources, not expiring Figma URLs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "download_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`limit`	No
`nodeId`	No
`offset`	No
`fileKey`	No
`snapshotId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description usefully explains why it is not read-only: it materializes files locally and returns paths rather than volatile URLs. It stops short of disclosing where files are written, whether prior downloads are overwritten, auth requirements, or whether downloads are synchronous versus job-based (relevant given the figma_job_status sibling).

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key contrast (local paths vs expiring URLs) is front-loaded. It is efficient but so compressed that it omits the action verb and any scoping information, trading clarity for brevity.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden it only partly meets. It adequately explains the return-value nature but leaves the entire parameter surface and download mechanics undocumented.

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% across six parameters, so the schema provides names, types, and constraints but no meaning. The description compensates for none of them — url, fileKey, nodeId, snapshotId, limit, and offset are never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which identifier selects what and how pagination behaves.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the output (paths to locally downloaded renders and image resources) and contrasts it with expiring Figma URLs, which is real information. However, it never states the operative action or its input dependency — it doesn't say the tool downloads assets for a given file, node, or snapshot — and does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as figma_get_assets, figma_export_assets, or get_screenshot.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied through the contrast with expiring Figma URLs, which hints that this tool should be chosen when durable local paths are needed. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.

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