Field-by-field comparison

Compare the evidence before choosing an MCP.

Each signal stays separate, missing facts remain visible, and the column order follows your selection.

MCPs in this comparison

Figma MCP BridgeFirecrawl MCP

Uncheck an MCP to remove it. Comparing two or three keeps each signal in its own row.

Comparable alternatives

Azure MCP ServerMCP100 SelectedChrome DevTools MCPMCP100 SelectedContext7 MCPMCP100 SelectedGrafana Cloud MCPMCP100 SelectedGoogle MCP Toolbox for DatabasesMCP100 SelectedExcel MCP ServerMCP100 Selected

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence field	Figma MCP BridgeWatchlist candidate	Firecrawl MCPMCP100 Selected
Task fit
Best for	Inspecting and operating the publisher-documented Figma bridge during design-to-code or design-automation work	Scraping and extracting public web pages Search, crawl, map, batch, and research workflows Teams already using Firecrawl API limits and governance
Not ideal for	Replacing designer review or guaranteeing production-ready code and pixel accuracy from arbitrary Figma files	Simple known-page fetches that do not justify a paid API Sites whose terms or access controls prohibit automated collection Workflows requiring guaranteed freshness or extraction accuracy
Avoid when	The connected Figma file contains confidential designs, comments, assets, or data that must not reach the MCP client	You cannot govern which URLs the agent may access The workflow may collect personal, confidential, copyrighted, or access-controlled content without review Unexpected API-credit consumption is unacceptable
Provenance
Provenance details	Community implementation github:gethopp · Publisher source ↗	First-party MCP Firecrawl · Publisher source ↗
Maintenance
Maintenance details	Repo: Aug 10, 2026 Package: Not documented	Repo: Aug 12, 2026 Package: Aug 12, 2026
Popularity evidence
GitHub stars	484 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	7,234 GitHub stars · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z
30-day package downloads	No reliable download data	412,488 30-day package downloads · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z
External adoption evidence	github: repository stars: 484Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗	github: repository stars: 7,234Exact attributable signal.github: repository stars · Admission snapshot · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
Client coverage
Client coverage details	Claude Code✓ Local stdio Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio Codex✓ Local stdio VS Code✓ Local stdio Cursor✓ Local stdio OpenCode✓ Local stdio	Claude Code✓ Local stdio Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio Codex✓ Local stdio VS Code✓ Local stdio Cursor✓ Local stdio OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Client coverage note	Local stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
Authentication	MCP authentication or tokens are not documented. The current Figma user must have permission to edit the target file for writes.	Cloud and local-package configurations use FIRECRAWL_API_KEY. Official docs also show hosted MCP URLs containing the key; environment-variable or protected input handling is safer than embedding the key in a URL.
Cost	The MIT-licensed project documents npx installation and lists no MCP usage fee. Figma plan, client, and model costs are separate.	MCP calls consume the account's standard Firecrawl API credits and rate limits. Search, crawl, batch, and agent operations can consume more resources than single-page scraping; current plan pricing applies.
Permissions	Reads connected Figma files, documents, selections, styles, variables, metadata, and screenshots. Opt-in tools can edit text and properties, create or delete nodes, reparent content, and save screenshots locally; writes require Figma edit permission.	The MCP can initiate outbound requests to user- or model-selected URLs and invoke Firecrawl scrape, search, crawl, map, extraction, batch, and research capabilities according to enabled tools and account limits.
Data handling	Streams live Figma document data from the plugin to the AI client through the local bridge; screenshots can be returned or saved locally. Telemetry, retention, and model-training behavior are not documented.	URLs, queries, extraction schemas, and retrieved page content are processed by the configured Firecrawl service. Cloud mode sends them to Firecrawl; self-hosted mode follows the operator's deployment and any configured model/provider dependencies.
Limitations
Tradeoffs	Live design context reduces screenshot guesswork, while the bridge and Figma-side setup add moving parts and expose document content to the agent.	Broad scrape, crawl, search, and autonomous-agent tools are powerful but enlarge prompt-injection, compliance, and cost exposure. Cloud mode is easy to configure; self-hosting adds operational burden. Remote URL forms that embed an API key are convenient but can leak through configuration, logs, screenshots, or history.
Risk context	Read tools can expose private designs and write tools can modify or delete shared files. Keep the unauthenticated local WebSocket and HTTP bridge restricted and require confirmation for writes.	Main risks are prompt injection from untrusted pages, collection-policy violations, sensitive URL/query disclosure, API-key leakage, and agent-driven credit spend. Use URL allow-lists, low limits, human approval, and a dedicated low-budget key.
Evidence date
Editorial review	2026-08-11	2026-07-24
Candidate evidence	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z	2026-08-14T18:46:26.000Z

Popularity, maintenance, fit, permissions, and client support are independent evidence fields.

Read the evidence method →