updated 2026-08-12 05:02 UTC

TalkToFigma MCP

grab/cursor-talk-to-figma-mcp

TalkToFigma: MCP integration between AI Agent (Cursor, Claude Code, Codex) and Figma, allowing Agentic AI to communicate

MCP Servers JavaScript Grade D Listed MIT
22.4/100
Rank #949 of 1283
Compare TalkToFigma MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

Open compare tool Suggest correction
Listing state
Listed
Evidence coverage
Grade D · 1/5 signals
Last push
2026-07-26 · 17d ago
Recent change
New

Is TalkToFigma MCP safe? TalkToFigma MCP scores 22.4/100 (Grade D), ranked #949 of 1283 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage D (1 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; no OSSF Scorecard result yet; 16% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-07-26. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in MCP Servers

#481 Awesome Copilot MCP Server — 22.5 (D) → #482 Sub Agents MCP — 22.5 (D) → #484 Xdebug MCP — 22.4 (D) → #485 Huly MCP — 22.4 (D) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Add or improve OSSF Scorecard coverage so safety checks are easier to verify.
Recent Changes
2026-08-10
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #940
Maintainer Checklist
Add Scorecard coverage Expose the repository to OpenSSF Scorecard checks so supply-chain posture is easier to verify.
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.
Compare with another agent Get email alerts for TalkToFigma MCP View MCP Servers Report missing data
63.1
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#483
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 D is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (1 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →

Signals refreshed 2026-08-12 05:02 UTC · Repo last pushed 17 days ago

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-08-12

Activity & Reach

Stars
7.0k
Forks
764
Last Push
2026-07-26
17 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
1
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
69
Rank Change
▼1
was #948

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs MCP Servers

22.4 / 100 · 50.0% confidence

TalkToFigma MCP MCP Servers average (761 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
0.8 / 25
4.2 below avg 5.0
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
2.5 below avg 13.3
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
8.5 / 17
in line with avg 8.8
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
12.1 / 20
in line with avg 12.4
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
9.2 / 20
3.4 above avg 5.8

Activity Inputs

63.1 / 100
StarsRepository reach
23.1 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
22.6 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
3.8 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.4 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
—
Not available
Signed Commits
16%
of last 100 commits verified

Is TalkToFigma MCP safe?

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?
No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for TalkToFigma MCP. Maintainers can enable the Scorecard GitHub Action to get a public score; without it, automated supply-chain hygiene is harder for outsiders to verify.
Is TalkToFigma MCP actively maintained?
Maintained. Last push was 17 days ago.
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
medium 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

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
Listed 1
2026-08-10
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #940
GitHub →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 22.4 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)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON