Thread

1. miguel-muniz · 1790869419 · focus · HN ↗

   For context: Figma has two MCPs. The local "dev" MCP that works through the Desktop app, and the remote MCP that requires a connection to Figma. Companies need to be whitelisted to use the remote MCP, which is the only one that allows agents edit access to Figma documents.

   I only found out about Figma's limitation when I was trying to add the remote MCP server to GitHub Copilot Desktop and kept running into errors. Turns out they whitelisted GitHub Copilot CLI but not the Desktop app and had put a pause on enabling any more vendors. Eventually someone (not sure which side) got it working.

   Kind of strange to limit edit access only to the Remote MCP when their competitors like Pen[1] and Paper[2] allow any local agent to edit.

   [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pen.dev&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pen.dev&#x2F;

   [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;paper.design&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;paper.design&#x2F;

   1. TeMPOraL · 1790875110 · focus · HN ↗

      They&#x27;re realizing what most product companies aren&#x27;t yet (at least not openly): AI subsumes products.

      Most companies seem to still be in denial about it, and hope that if they add some more AI into their product, or do it just right, it will make sense. But it won&#x27;t. AI is destined to sit on the outside, and products to be reduced into a bag of tools for AI to call.

      Taking away write access from AI tools outside their contractual control is an expected knee-jerk reaction, but it&#x27;ll probably just hasten the product&#x27;s slide into irrelevancy by ceding ground to competition (that will ultimately share the same fate, too, but is still in denial about it).

      1. amoorthy · 1790876691 · focus · HN ↗

         This is the crux of the issue. I think for infrequent use cases (question&#x2F;answer) an MCP with tool-calls to some product makes sense.

         But for frequent use cases - something you do daily or weekly perhaps - then a native interface still has merit. i.e. I don&#x27;t think AI subsumes the product in this case.

         1. tomjen3 · 1790881269 · focus · HN ↗

            I don&#x27;t see that. I would want a special tool for something that does not display well as text, like a 3D scene.

            I imagine I also want a specialized tool for, say, reviewing 3D models before printing them. And they would definitely like addresses to be shown in a navigable map.

            But that type of interface already exist (and has been #killedbygoogle) - its Google Wave.

            1. TeMPOraL · 1790885066 · focus · HN ↗

               Today, LLMs can vibe you that interface on the fly.

               &quot;I need an interface like ${this specific product} for my 3D scenes, but I also need to review each 3D model, which I normally do in ${that specialized tool}, and I&#x27;d love to have the two in one UI, well integrated, so I can ${description of your process}. Make it so.&quot;

               Put that in Antigravity&#x2F;Claude Code&#x2F;Codex&#x2F;whatever harness backed by a decent model, and good chances are, you&#x27;ll have exactly what you wanted in less than half an hour.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.