updated 2026-11-11 00:08 UTC

TalkToFigma MCP

Repository Website

TalkToFigma: MCP integration between AI Agent (Cursor, Claude Code, Codex) and Figma, allowing Agentic AI to communicate with Figma for reading designs and modifying them programmatically.

MCP Servers JavaScript Listed MIT

Is TalkToFigma MCP safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

OSSF Scorecard 1.6 / 10
Provenance None
Signed commits 16%
Last push 108d ago
Compare TalkToFigma MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →
Suggest a correction

In detail: TalkToFigma MCP scores 39.2/100 (Grade D), ranked #1225 of 1387 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 1.6/10; 16% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-07-26. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How TalkToFigma MCP could raise its score

Each line changes one public signal and recomputes with the live scoring function. The gains don't add up exactly, because the score is capped near the top.

Already done? Suggest a correctionAdd the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships TalkToFigma MCP and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the code you run. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.

  1. Source Partly signed

    github.com/grab/cursor-talk-to-figma-mcp, MIT, last pushed 2026-07-26. 16% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.

  2. Review and release Weak

    OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 1.6/10 (scanned Nov 8, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:

    • Code Review2
    • Branch Protection0
    • Signed Releasesn/a
    • Dangerous Workflown/a
    • Token Permissionsn/a
    • Pinned Dependencies0
    All 18 Scorecard checks
    Binary-Artifacts 10
    Branch-Protection 0
    CI-Tests 0
    CII-Best-Practices 0
    Code-Review 2
    Contributors 3
    Dangerous-Workflow -1
    Dependency-Update-Tool 0
    Fuzzing 0
    License 10
    Maintained 0
    Packaging -1
    Pinned-Dependencies 0
    SAST 0
    Security-Policy 0
    Signed-Releases -1
    Token-Permissions -1
    Vulnerabilities 0

  3. Published packages None

    No registry package. TalkToFigma MCP is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.

Changes to this chain

  • 2026-09-03 OSSF Scorecard: 1.6/10

Evidence behind this score

Coverage C: 2 of 5 independent evidence types found.

  • GitHub repository data
  • Package downloads (missing)
  • Supply-chain checks
  • Public actions (missing)
  • Community mentions (missing)

Verify this score yourself

Every build re-issues TalkToFigma MCP’s score as an Ed25519-signed credential, valid for 7 days. You can check it offline against HVTracker’s published key; if anyone changes a number after signing, verification fails.

Signed credential (JSON) How to verify

What this score doesn’t check

It covers who ships the code, not what the code does. It doesn’t read tool descriptions or prompts for injected instructions, watch runtime behaviour, or find bugs nobody has disclosed yet. For that, run a content scanner before you connect it, such as Cisco MCP Scanner or Snyk Agent Scan.

How TalkToFigma MCP compares in MCP Servers

  1. #704 Ejentum MCP 39.2 ±0
  2. #705 Glean Remote MCP Server 39.2 ±0
  3. #706 TalkToFigma MCP 39.2 this agent
  4. #707 AynOps 39.1 −0.1
  5. #708 Terminal MCP Server 39.0 −0.2

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks TalkToFigma MCP’s 39.2.

Where the 39.2 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

39.2 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

TalkToFigma MCP MCP Servers average (779 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
2.8 / 25
8.0 below avg 10.8
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
2.9 below avg 13.7
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
9.9 / 17
2.4 below avg 12.3
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
4.8 / 20
7.5 below avg 12.3
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
9.2 / 20
1.6 above avg 7.6

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-10-24
Activity Went Stale
No commits for 90 days
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 1.6/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
Increase signed commits Raise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
Refresh maintenance signals The repo was last pushed 108 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.
Compare with another agent
View MCP Servers Report missing data
46.7
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#706
In MCP Servers

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade D reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Evidence coverage C is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (2 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →

Signals refreshed 2026-11-11 00:08 UTC · Repo last pushed 108 days ago

Rank Trend

2026-09-29 2026-11-10

Activity & Reach

Stars
7.1k
Forks
795
Last Push
2026-07-26
108 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
68
Rank Change
▼2
was #1223

Analysis

Activity Inputs

46.7 / 100
StarsRepository reach
23.1 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
10.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.5 / 20

Common questions about TalkToFigma MCP

Public trust evidence for TalkToFigma MCP is thin: several supply-chain signals are missing or weak. This does not mean the project is unsafe — it means an outside observer cannot easily verify the usual integrity checks. Treat with extra scrutiny.
Does TalkToFigma MCP publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for TalkToFigma MCP. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does TalkToFigma MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
TalkToFigma MCP has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 1.6/10. The Scorecard checks for branch protection, signed releases, dependency updates, fuzzing, code review, and other supply-chain hygiene items. See the full check breakdown on this page.
Is TalkToFigma MCP actively maintained?
Slowing down. Last push was 108 days ago — keep an eye on whether activity resumes.
What license does TalkToFigma MCP use?
TalkToFigma MCP ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are TalkToFigma MCP's commits signed?
16% of the last 100 commits to TalkToFigma MCP are verified-signed (GPG, SSH, S/MIME, or GitHub's signing flow). Signed commits help confirm that code was authored by who the commit claims.

Not a safety endorsement. HVTracker describes what public signals show, not whether a project is safe for your use case. Run your own security review before adopting in production.

AI agent surface

MCP, providers, tool surface
Scored in HVTrust

These runtime-trust fields — detected from public repo docs and manifests — contribute a bounded adjustment to this project's HVTrust score alongside supply-chain evidence. The exact values each field can add or subtract are documented in the methodology → Compare this surface across every listed agent in the capability matrix →

MCP Server Support
high confidence
Implemented
TalkToFigma MCP appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
None detected
No clear third-party provider dependency detected.
Credential signal: No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
N/A
No package source configured
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
  • MCP signal live
  • External deps live
  • Tool / plugin surface live
  • Package provenance drift live
How this surface has changed

Detected changes to TalkToFigma MCP's runtime surface and supply-chain posture, from daily public-signal snapshots. A change here means our detectors see something different — a genuinely changed capability, or better evidence of an existing one.

2026-10-24
Activity Went Stale
No commits for 90 days
2026-09-23
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared
2026-09-23
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

Maintain TalkToFigma MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores TalkToFigma MCP from public signals only — we never contact maintainers first. If a signal is wrong, stale, or missing (provenance you publish, a Scorecard you run, signed releases), tell us and we'll review it. Corrections are public and tracked on GitHub.

Submit a correction → Add the trust badge

Reputation Timeline

Signal history
Rank 21HVTrust 2Scorecard 1Delisted 1Listed 1MCP 1Surface 1Stale 1
2026-10-24
Activity Went Stale
No commits for 90 days
2026-10-09
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 11 spots (#1151 → #1162)
2026-09-23
Tool Surface Changed
Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared
2026-09-23
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
2026-09-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 445 spots (#669 → #1114)
2026-09-23
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 11.0pts (31.5 → 42.5)
2026-09-22
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #669
2026-09-21
Removed From Active Tracking
Removed from active tracking
2026-09-12
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#1088 → #1100)
2026-09-09
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 16 spots (#1067 → #1083)
2026-09-07
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 36 spots (#1025 → #1061)
2026-09-06
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 15 spots (#1010 → #1025)
2026-09-05
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 43 spots (#967 → #1010)
2026-09-04
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 31 spots (#936 → #967)
2026-09-03
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 1.6/10
2026-09-03
Rank Moved
Rank rose 323 spots (#1259 → #936)
2026-09-03
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 22.7pts (21.1 → 43.8)
2026-09-02
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 26 spots (#1233 → #1259)
2026-09-01
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 23 spots (#1210 → #1233)
2026-08-31
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 24 spots (#1186 → #1210)
2026-08-30
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 26 spots (#1160 → #1186)
2026-08-29
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 30 spots (#1130 → #1160)
2026-08-28
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 25 spots (#1105 → #1130)
2026-08-27
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 16 spots (#1089 → #1105)
2026-08-26
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 67 spots (#1022 → #1089)
2026-08-25
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 42 spots (#980 → #1022)
2026-08-24
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 13 spots (#967 → #980)
2026-08-22
Rank Moved
Rank rose 12 spots (#979 → #967)
2026-08-16
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 26 spots (#951 → #977)
GitHub → Website →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 39.2 Grade D
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/talktofigma-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/talktofigma-mcp)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/talktofigma-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/talktofigma-mcp.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON