Local Figma MCP

figma_export_assets

Export selected Figma nodes as SVG or PNG files and save them locally for use in development or design workflows.

Instructions

Export selected nodes as SVG or PNG and save the actual files locally.

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": {
      "snapshotId": "<snapshotId>",
      "nodeIds": "<nodeIds>"
    },
    "name": "figma_export_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`scale`	No
`format`	No	svg
`nodeIds`	Yes
`snapshotId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, so the write-like nature is known. The phrase 'save the actual files locally' usefully confirms a local filesystem side effect, but the description never says where files land, what they are named, or what happens on repeated calls for the same node.

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 tight sentence with the operation and its outcome front-loaded; nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

With four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a required snapshotId that is never explained, the description leaves too much for an agent to guess. It should at minimum clarify what a snapshotId refers to and where the exported files are written.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only echoes the format enum. The required snapshotId is completely unexplained (which snapshot? where from?), and nodeIds and scale get no meaning at all — notably scale's 0.01–4 range and default of svg.

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?

States a specific verb ('Export'), the resource ('selected nodes'), the output formats (SVG or PNG), and the side effect (saves files locally). An agent can grasp the operation without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like download_assets or figma_get_assets.

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 guidance on when to choose this over download_assets, figma_get_assets, or get_screenshot, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., that a snapshot must exist first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb and format list.

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