Diclaimer: I might change my opinion later.
Figma's release of MCP server support is making rounds in the internet. The feature is still in beta, but I wanted to be quick to write down my initial thoughts so I can see later how right or wrong I got it.
Short answer: it's not that clear.
The claim is "more efficient and accurate design-to-code workflow". But what is the actual problem? Is it uneducated or unskilled developer? Inconsistencies in implementation? Slow design-to-development process? All of these issues are very well-known and recognised problems with various different solutions ranging from tools to processes to organisational setups. Will Figma's MCP make these issues go away?
The efficiency argument holds some merit at first glance, especially regarding integration. Allowing developers to access design content directly from their code editor can streamline the workflow and potentially boost productivity. While this improvement isn’t universal, it’s a reasonable claim for many scenarios.
On closer examination, the efficiency argument loses some of its strength. With MCPs, a key point often overlooked is that the underlying interpretation of design content still relies on large language models. While integration between systems is now more seamless, persistent challenges remain. Issues with output accuracy and content validity are not automatically resolved. Human oversight and validation are still essential.
Even though the technology is still in its early stages, some fundamental truths remain unchanged:
In my previous post From design to dev I outlined "Types of alignment approaches" from design to development. In this "model" Figma MCP falls into category "enforced" which means the alignment is done via fixed libraries, close coupling with tooling and design references. The challenges in this approach includes extensive tooling and reliance on non-standard non-transferrable solutions and skills. Figma MCP in it's current form is peak "enforced" approach. It practically outsources interpretation of design intention to tools. The tools couldn't be more involved in the "handover" than this.
I believe the true hidden cost of this approach is in the setup and maintenance. The setup will lead to continuous oiling of the engine, more specifically tuning and fixing issues related to:
All of the above requires great amount of discipline to get right. Figma, or any vector drawing application for that matter, is not designed to support workflows that requires strict formatting of content and explicit versioning of assets. I am not confident the following requirements are achieavable and maintainable for great majority of product teams. It sure sounds fascinating, but remains unreachable for the most of us.
In the end the question is "is it worth it?" I am strong believer in principle minimising the investments in non-end-user asset creation and maximise the investment in understanding how the output actually works to make it better. Figma MCP is interesting, but at this point I'd leave it that.