designfit
NPM · DESIGNFIT
Validate AI-built front-ends against Figma by tokens and geometry, not pixels.
Available components
Last scanned (9 hours ago)
Scores higher than 42% of npm servers
Category Design and Media
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security81
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- CVE check failed: a known high-severity CVE affects zod 3.25.76, a direct dependency. A fixed version is available. View diagnostics → Fail
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 30 of 96 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency45
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 20 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability68
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 308 tokens (~154/item across 2 items; 2 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management70
- Stability observed for 21 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage67
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 2 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 2 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 24 Oct 26 −4
- CVE-2023-54404 affects this package: high ▼ security
- Known CVEs: pass → fail ▼ security
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 60 to 63. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 18 days of observed history at the previous scan, 19 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 17 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 15 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 14 Oct 26 +5
- Stability: unverified → 0.37 ▲ functional
- 4 Oct 26 +25
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Known CVEs: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Dependency health: unverified → 0.86 ▲ functional
- 3 Oct 26 41
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 24 Oct 2026 · Analysed npm/designfit@0.2.1
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | npm |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 1 finding
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 | CVE-2023-54404 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
Dependencies 96 packages
| Packages resolved | 96 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 30 |
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
designfit_extract Extract a design spec from Figma ~185
Turn a Figma frame into the design spec designfit_validate expects. Give it a Figma link (https://www.figma.com/design/<fileKey>/...?node-id=...), or fileKey + nodeId, and it fetches the node via Figma's REST API using the FIGMA_TOKEN env var; or paste the raw GET /v1/files/:key/nodes response as `nodes` and nothing is fetched. Returns { design, componentMap, viewport }: add `url` and call designfit_validate. Deterministic. Hidden nodes are skipped; a frame made only of vectors is one leaf (an icon). `maxDepth` limits how deep to go.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileKey | string | – | – |
| maxDepth | integer | – | – |
| nodeId | string | – | – |
| nodes | object | – | – |
| url | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
designfit_validate Validate design fidelity ~123
Validate a rendered front-end against its Figma design. Tag each built element with data-designfit-id="<figmaNodeId>", pass the design spec (geometry + tokens, from designfit_extract or relayed from Figma's MCP), the running URL, and the component map. Returns a fidelity score and a machine-actionable fix-list of token, geometry, and presence violations.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| componentMap | array | yes | – |
| design | object | yes | – |
| tolerances | object | – | – |
| url | string | yes | – |
| viewport | object | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the designfit MCP server?
designfit runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y designfit. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
npm · designfit
claude mcp add as9978-designfit -- npx -y designfit
What is the designfit MCP server?
designfit is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.as9978/designfit. Validate AI-built front-ends against Figma by tokens and geometry, not pixels. This page covers its npm package (designfit).
Is the designfit MCP server safe to use?
designfit scores 71 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We recorded 1 known advisory against it as of 24 October 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the designfit MCP server expose?
designfit exposes 2 tools: designfit_validate, designfit_extract. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 308 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the designfit MCP server still maintained?
designfit is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 24 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the designfit MCP server under?
designfit declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.