Figma Restricts Remote MCP Access to Whitelisted Clients, Excluding Pi

Figma’s new whitelist policy blocks Pi from the remote MCP

Takeaway: Figma confirmed that its remote MCP (Multi‑Client Protocol) server only serves clients on an official whitelist, and the popular open‑source Pi harness is not on that list. The company provided a catalog of allowed clients and a form for requesting inclusion.

What Figma announced

In a tweet, Figma employee Gayani replied to a user (David Soria Parra) stating that the remote MCP server “only accepts clients on our supported list, and Pi isn’t on it yet.”
The current whitelist is published at figma.com/mcp-catalog.
Interested parties can request addition via a Google Form: forms.gle/qSvUawwznWyoj8Go7.

“Hey David, Gayani here from Figma. You're right that our remote MCP server only accepts clients on our supported list, and Pi isn't on it yet. You can see the current list in our MCP catalog … If you'd like Pi considered for a future addition, please fill out this form.” – Gayani @ Figma (Sep 30 2026)

Why the restriction matters

Remote MCP vs. local dev MCP: According to commenter @miguel-muniz, Figma operates two MCP endpoints. The local “dev” MCP runs inside the desktop app and is unrestricted. The remote MCP requires a network connection to Figma’s servers and is the only endpoint that grants edit‑access to Figma documents for external agents.
Whitelisting limits ecosystem openness: Open‑source harnesses such as Pi, OpenCode, Moonshot AI, and others rely on the remote MCP to perform read/write operations. Excluding them forces developers to either (a) stay on the local dev MCP (which lacks edit capabilities) or (b) seek a whitelist approval that can be slow or opaque.
Competitive disadvantage: Competing design tools like Penpot and Paper allow any local agent to edit documents without a remote whitelist, giving them a more open integration model.

Community reaction and real‑world impact

Commenter	Key Point	Implication
@miguel-muniz	Remote MCP is whitelisted; GitHub Copilot Desktop hit the block.	Shows that even large vendors can be denied access, disrupting workflows.
@JimDabell	OpenCode spent eight months negotiating access; felt Figma was protecting its own labs.	Highlights perceived anti‑competitive behavior and bureaucratic friction.
@SkyPuncher	Whitelisting may be a security measure against OAuth redirect attacks and data exfiltration.	Provides a plausible justification but admits the trade‑off hurts developers.
@mcbuilder	“MCP is such a thin layer; this just seems arbitrary.”	Emphasizes frustration that a simple protocol is being gatekept.
@WhitneyLand	Even whitelisted clients face low daily request caps (6 req/day for standard accounts).	Indicates that inclusion does not guarantee a usable experience.

Technical context of the MCP whitelist

User‑Agent based allowlist: Several commenters noted that the whitelist operates on the client’s User‑Agent string (e.g., Pi’s identifier). This is similar to how some services block unknown agents to mitigate phishing and open‑redirect exploits.
Potential for spoofing: As @linuxftw observed, “malicious users will just spoof those,” meaning the allowlist offers limited security if not combined with additional verification (e.g., OAuth client IDs).
Alternative approaches: @SkyPuncher suggested per‑tenant client configuration as a more flexible solution, albeit with higher maintenance overhead.

Workarounds and unofficial solutions

Reverse‑engineered clients: Users like @allan_s have published unofficial MCP implementations that bypass the whitelist by using a raw cookie session and custom user‑agent strings.
Custom OAuth client name field: @ig0r0 reported that updating Pi’s OAuth client name to “Codex” allowed it to work with Figma’s MCP, indicating that naming conventions can affect acceptance.
Open‑source alternatives: Projects such as OpenPencil, OpenCode, and Moonshot AI continue to experiment with their own MCP proxies, though they may still encounter the same whitelist barrier.

What developers can do now

Check the official catalog – Verify whether your client is already listed at figma.com/mcp-catalog.
Submit a request – Use the provided Google Form to ask Figma to add Pi or any other harness.
Consider local dev MCP – If edit access is not essential, the unrestricted local MCP may suffice for read‑only operations.
Explore unofficial implementations – Be aware of potential terms‑of‑service violations when using reverse‑engineered clients.
Monitor Figma communications – Follow Figma’s official channels for updates on whitelist expansion or policy changes.

Outlook

The whitelist reflects Figma’s attempt to balance security (preventing open redirects and uncontrolled data flow) with ecosystem openness. However, community feedback suggests the current model is perceived as overly restrictive and potentially anti‑competitive.
If Figma expands the whitelist or adopts a more granular per‑tenant configuration, it could restore goodwill among developers and maintain its position as a platform for third‑party design tooling.
Until then, developers must navigate the whitelist process, accept low request limits, or rely on community‑maintained workarounds.