Attempting to access file's protoype information

[tsargent]

I am attempting to access information about a file's prototype, which includes an arrow the shows a flow from one screen to another. In the Figma file API response, I can get this information, but it looks like it is filtered out in the MCP due to the simplifiedResponse. Is this designed this way on purpose? Would you accept a PR that allows this data to come through with the MCP?

My quick hackey approach to get the data is here: https://github.com/GLips/Figma-Context-MCP/compare/main...tsargent:Figma-Context-MCP:allow-all-data?expand=1

Maybe we could pass a flag to allow the raw JSON?

For example, if I use the MCP as it currently is, Copilot will give me this information about a file:

But if I modify it to just pass through the entire file response, I can get this, which can be very useful for constructing flows:

[GLips]

In the Figma file API response, I can get this information, but it looks like it is filtered out in the MCP due to the simplifiedResponse. Is this designed this way on purpose?

Yes and no.

Yes, in that the simplifiedResponse is smaller than the raw response by about 80–90% on average. The smaller size makes it a lot easier for the LLM to produce accurate code. Also, many of the values from Figma are in a format that is less familiar to LLMs. The response parsing generally turns those values into a much more familiar CSS-like format.

No, in that I would love to support Figma prototypes in the MCP, and it's on the roadmap. I just want to do it in a considered manner where we're including only the relevant information. Similar to the way we handle the regular design data today.

A PR that pulls this off would be very welcome!

[tsargent]

Thanks @GLips ! I would love to try to contribute. Do you think it would make sense, at least as a short term solution, to allow a flag that passes through the whole response? And then it's just up to the user to help the LLM make sense of the data, since it won't be formatted the same way that simplifiedResponse formats it?

[GLips]

I see your opened pull request from a minute ago. I guess it's an okay approach as a stopgap, but I have concerns about MCP UX and flags. They're are totally opaque to end-users. They require users to read the docs in order to guide LLMs to use them properly. IME LLMs often use functions in silly ways, even when the function and arguments have very clear descriptions.

I'll review the PR and do some testing to see how it goes with various models though.

[tsargent]

Thanks! I understand. Yeah, let me know what you think. I'm new to the MCP stuff and just happy to contribute.

[tsargent]

Linking the PR here: #145

[tsargent]

Another option might be to register a separate tool so that it surfaces more clearly to the user.