Skip to main content
Glama

export_node_as_image

Export Figma design elements as images in PNG, JPG, SVG, or PDF formats by specifying node IDs and scaling options.

Instructions

Export a node as an image from Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe ID of the node to export
formatNoExport format
scaleNoExport scale

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'export_node_as_image' MCP tool. It proxies the request to the Figma plugin via sendCommandToFigma, receives the image data, and returns it as an MCP image content block. Includes inline schema validation with Zod.
    // Export Node as Image Tool
    server.tool(
      "export_node_as_image",
      "Export a node as an image from Figma",
      {
        nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to export"),
        format: z
          .enum(["PNG", "JPG", "SVG", "PDF"])
          .optional()
          .describe("Export format"),
        scale: z.number().positive().optional().describe("Export scale"),
      },
      async ({ nodeId, format, scale }) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("export_node_as_image", {
            nodeId,
            format: format || "PNG",
            scale: scale || 1,
          });
          const typedResult = result as { imageData: string; mimeType: string };
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "image",
                data: typedResult.imageData,
                mimeType: typedResult.mimeType || "image/png",
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error exporting node as image: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                  }`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Registration of the 'export_node_as_image' tool using McpServer.tool() method, including name, description, input schema, and handler.
    // Export Node as Image Tool
    server.tool(
      "export_node_as_image",
      "Export a node as an image from Figma",
      {
        nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to export"),
        format: z
          .enum(["PNG", "JPG", "SVG", "PDF"])
          .optional()
          .describe("Export format"),
        scale: z.number().positive().optional().describe("Export scale"),
      },
      async ({ nodeId, format, scale }) => {
        try {
          const result = await sendCommandToFigma("export_node_as_image", {
            nodeId,
            format: format || "PNG",
            scale: scale || 1,
          });
          const typedResult = result as { imageData: string; mimeType: string };
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "image",
                data: typedResult.imageData,
                mimeType: typedResult.mimeType || "image/png",
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error exporting node as image: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                  }`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Zod schema for input validation of the 'export_node_as_image' tool: nodeId (required string), format (optional enum PNG/JPG/SVG/PDF), scale (optional positive number).
    {
      nodeId: z.string().describe("The ID of the node to export"),
      format: z
        .enum(["PNG", "JPG", "SVG", "PDF"])
        .optional()
        .describe("Export format"),
      scale: z.number().positive().optional().describe("Export scale"),
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Export' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires write permissions, if it's a read-only operation, what happens to the exported file (e.g., saved location, format limitations), or potential side effects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Export a node as an image') and specifies the source ('from Figma'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity of an export operation (likely involving file generation or data output), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., image data, file path, success status), which is critical for an agent to use it effectively in a workflow with other tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'nodeId', 'format' (including enum values), and 'scale'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 clearly states the verb ('Export') and resource ('a node as an image from Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_node_info' or 'scan_nodes_by_types', which might also involve node operations but for different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_node_info' (for retrieving node details) or 'create_rectangle' (for creating nodes), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for exporting images.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/pipethedev/Talk-to-Figma-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server