Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@figma-developer-docs-mcp How do I create a TextNode using the Figma Plugin API?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that provides AI coding assistants with structured access to the complete Figma developer documentation.
Section | Pages | Content |
Plugin API | 450 | Node types, properties, methods, guides |
Widget API | 78 | Components, hooks, types, guides |
REST API | 51 | Endpoints, authentication, webhooks, SCIM |
Figma MCP Server | 23 | Setup, tools, troubleshooting |
Code (Figma Make) | 19 | Code layers, properties, guidelines |
Code Connect | 18 | React, SwiftUI, Compose, CI/CD |
Embeds | 8 | Embed kit, security, API |
Total | 649 |
Related MCP server: Figma MCP Server
claude mcp add figma-developer-docs -- npx figma-developer-docs-mcpAdd to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"figma-developer-docs": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["figma-developer-docs-mcp"]
}
}
}npx figma-developer-docs-mcpThe server communicates over stdio using the MCP protocol.
read-figma-developer-docs-indexReturns the full documentation index — all sections and page listings. Use this first to discover what's available.
read-figma-developer-docs-pagesReads specific documentation pages by path. Accepts an array of paths from the index.
paths: ["/docs/plugins/api/TextNode", "/docs/plugins/working-with-text"]search-figma-developer-docsFull-text search across all documentation. Returns matching pages with excerpts.
query: "createImage"
section: "plugins" // optional: limit to a section
maxResults: 10 // optional# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build
npm run build
# Re-scrape documentation (requires internet)
npm run scrape
# Run locally
node dist/index.jsThe documentation is scraped from developers.figma.com and converted to Markdown files organized by section. The MCP server reads these files on demand and serves them through three tools: index, read, and search.
The scraped docs are included in the npm package so the server works offline with no network requests.
MIT
Read the Figma developer documentation index. Returns all documentation sections (Plugin API, Widget API, REST API, Code Connect, Embeds, Figma MCP Server, Code/Make) with page listings. Use this first to discover what documentation is available, then use read-figma-developer-docs-pages to read specific pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation and describes the return content structure (all documentation sections with page listings). However, it doesn't disclose potential behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be important for an agent to know.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool returns and how it fits into a workflow with sibling tools. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but given the tool's simplicity and clear purpose, the description is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read'), resource ('Figma developer documentation index'), and output ('all documentation sections with page listings'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by stating it should be used first to discover documentation before using read-figma-developer-docs-pages for specific pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this first to discover what documentation is available') and when to use alternatives ('then use read-figma-developer-docs-pages to read specific pages'). It creates a clear workflow relationship with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read specific pages of the Figma developer documentation. Provide page paths from the index (e.g., '/docs/plugins/api/TextNode', '/docs/rest-api/authentication'). Returns the full markdown content of each requested page. You can request multiple pages at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | Array of documentation page paths to read (e.g., ['/docs/plugins/api/TextNode', '/docs/plugins/working-with-text']) |
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 discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 'full markdown content' and supports 'multiple pages at once'. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., what happens if a path is invalid), rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination. For a read operation with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with zero waste: first sentence states the purpose, second specifies the return format, third adds the multi-page capability. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, input examples, return format, and multi-page support. However, it lacks details on error cases or response structure, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema. It's mostly adequate but could be more comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'paths'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides example paths ('/docs/plugins/api/TextNode', '/docs/rest-api/authentication') and clarifies that you can 'request multiple pages at once', which is implied by the array type in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read'), resource ('Figma developer documentation pages'), and scope ('specific pages'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'read-figma-developer-docs-index' (which presumably reads the index) and 'search-figma-developer-docs' (which searches rather than reading specific pages). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for reading specific documentation pages when you know the exact paths. It implies an alternative (the sibling 'search-figma-developer-docs' for when you don't know the exact paths), but doesn't explicitly name it or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is helpful but not fully explicit about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search across all Figma developer documentation for a keyword or phrase. Returns matching page paths and relevant excerpts. Useful when you know what you're looking for but not which page it's on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query — keyword or phrase to find in the documentation | |
| section | No | Optional: limit search to a specific section (e.g., 'plugins', 'rest-api', 'widgets') | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 10) |
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 describes what the tool does (search documentation) and what it returns (matching page paths and relevant excerpts), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first explains the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search function with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search across all Figma developer documentation') and resources ('documentation'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it's for when you 'know what you're looking for but not which page it's on' (unlike the read-index and read-pages tools).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool ('when you know what you're looking for but not which page it's on'), which implicitly differentiates it from the sibling tools that likely retrieve specific pages or indices. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0read-figma-developer-docs-indexread-figma-developer-docs-pagessearch-figma-developer-docsEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one reads the index to discover available documentation, one reads specific pages for detailed content, and one searches across all documentation. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool based on the task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens: 'read-figma-developer-docs-index', 'read-figma-developer-docs-pages', and 'search-figma-developer-docs'. This predictability enhances usability and reduces confusion.
Three tools are well-scoped for the server's purpose of accessing Figma developer documentation, covering discovery, reading, and searching. While slightly minimal, each tool earns its place, and there is no bloat or obvious missing functionality for this focused domain.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain of accessing documentation: it allows agents to discover available docs via the index, read specific pages for detailed information, and search across all content when needed. There are no gaps that would cause agent failures in typical documentation workflows.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
The documentation, as a tool your agent can call: 950+ AI-dev guides. Search + fetch tools.
Provides AI assistants with direct access to Mapbox developer APIs and documentation.
The Figma MCP server brings Figma design context directly into your AI workflow.
Provide your AI coding tools with token-efficient access to up-to-date technical documentation for…
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/akari2600/figma-developer-docs-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
