# Website Design Feedback MCP for Cursor [Open the live Fudge conversation](https://design.withfudge.com/share/website-design-feedback-mcp-for-cursor) Last updated: 2026-08-25 A website design feedback MCP for Cursor helps your coding agent compare a page with captured website references while you work. The best approach is to ask Cursor to inspect the visible design first, explain the differences, and only then propose focused code changes. ## Use Cursor with a focused review loop Start with a specific page and a specific decision. You might want to improve a developer landing page, make a documentation page easier to scan, or bring several sections into a consistent visual system. Give Cursor the current page and a small set of references that support that goal. Use this sequence: 1. **Choose the comparison area.** Start with the first viewport, navigation, hero, feature cards, pricing section, or footer rather than reviewing everything at once. 2. **Ask for visible observations.** Have Cursor check sections, layout, viewport state, typography, colors, spacing, borders, radii, shadows, images, and motion where those details matter. 3. **Separate diagnosis from implementation.** Ask it to list differences and rank them before it edits files. 4. **Make one small batch of changes.** Keep the work narrow enough that you can see which decisions affected the page. 5. **Run a browser review.** Ask Cursor to compare the revised page with the same checklist and note remaining gaps. The examples below give you concrete references to discuss. The Notion Developer Platform card can help you study how a developer-facing page organizes its opening message. Claude Code and Exa MCP Server offer other technical-product references to compare for hierarchy, explanation, and calls to action. Open each example and decide which relationship is useful before adopting any visual treatment. ## Captured pages [![Notion Developer Platform](https://pin.fontofweb.com/9283?format=jpg)](https://design.withfudge.com/share/pin-9283) [Notion Developer Platform](https://design.withfudge.com/share/pin-9283) [![Claude Code](https://pin.fontofweb.com/1446?format=jpg)](https://design.withfudge.com/share/pin-1446) [Claude Code](https://design.withfudge.com/share/pin-1446) [![Exa MCP Server](https://pin.fontofweb.com/6429?format=jpg)](https://design.withfudge.com/share/pin-6429) [Exa MCP Server](https://design.withfudge.com/share/pin-6429) ## A Cursor review checklist Ask Cursor to answer these questions in order: - What does the first viewport communicate within a few seconds? - Is the primary action easy to identify without competing buttons? - Does the heading size and line length make the main message easy to scan? - Are supporting details placed close enough to the message they explain? - Do sections have a clear rhythm through spacing, alignment, or background changes? - Are cards aligned in width, height, padding, and gap where they should be? - Do text, border, background, and accent colors have clear roles? - Are font family, weight, size, and line height choices consistent across similar elements? - Does the layout survive longer copy and narrower screens? - Do images, overlays, clipping, and motion support the message rather than distract from it? Tell Cursor to cite the page area for every observation. "The feature grid starts too close to the hero" gives you a place to inspect. "The page lacks energy" does not. ## Rank changes before editing Use four categories to decide what deserves attention: - **Clarity:** The visitor cannot quickly tell what the page offers or what to do next. - **Hierarchy:** The visual emphasis does not match the importance of the content. - **Consistency:** Similar elements use different spacing, type, color, or component rules. - **Polish:** Small treatments such as borders, shadows, gradients, imagery, or motion need refinement. Fix clarity before polish. If the headline is unclear or the primary action is buried, changing a shadow will not solve the main problem. If the structure already works, compare typography and spacing before reaching for a new component. Ask Cursor to suggest the smallest change that addresses the issue and to preserve content and behavior unless a change is necessary. ## A prompt that produces better feedback A useful request names the page, references, comparison areas, and expected answer. Ask Cursor to inspect the current implementation and the saved references, describe the strongest differences, rank them by likely effect on comprehension, and propose changes that fit the existing code. Request a short verification checklist after the edit. You can also ask for a design detail inventory before implementation: heading levels, font families and variants, color roles, common spacing steps, border and radius patterns, shadow use, image treatment, and responsive behavior. This gives you a practical basis for reusable CSS or component changes without pretending that a reference is your official internal design system. If the result still feels wrong, narrow the next request. Compare only the hero, only the card grid, or only the mobile layout. Smaller questions give Cursor less room to replace a design decision with a generic rewrite. ## Use this in your AI agent > Inspect my current website in Cursor against the saved references for developer-focused products. Compare the first viewport, page structure, hierarchy, typography, color roles, spacing, cards, and primary action. Report concrete differences with page locations, rank the three most important fixes, and propose changes that fit the existing components. Wait for my approval before editing, then verify the result against the same checklist. [Install Fudge for your AI agent](/mcp) --- Yes, if you frame the references as evidence for relationships rather than instructions to duplicate a page. Ask Cursor to compare hierarchy, spacing, type scale, color roles, card structure, and responsive behavior, then translate the useful patterns into your existing content and components. For example, say: "Use these references to identify ways to improve scanning and visual priority. Do not copy their branding, wording, imagery, or distinctive composition. Recommend patterns that fit my page goal and existing design rules." This keeps the review focused on decisions you can reuse. Also ask Cursor to explain each recommendation in terms of your page. A reference may place a large heading beside an illustration, while your content may need a stacked layout because the message is longer. The goal is not visual imitation. It is a clearer page built with reasons you can review. --- Ask Cursor to turn the review into a short, ordered change list before it touches the code. Each item should include the page area, the current problem, the proposed adjustment, the files or components involved, and a browser check that will confirm the result. Work in this order: first fix the message and primary action, then adjust layout and spacing, then tune typography and colors, and finally refine borders, shadows, imagery, or motion. After each small batch, view the page at the main desktop and mobile sizes. Check heading wraps, button visibility, card alignment, and section spacing with realistic content. Finish with a comparison request: "Re-run the original checklist and show which issues are resolved, which remain, and which recommendations you did not apply." That creates a clear stopping point and makes the next design decision easier. ## Related questions - [Website design feedback MCP for Gemini CLI](/share/website-design-feedback-mcp-for-gemini-cli) - [Website Design Feedback MCP for GitHub Copilot](/share/website-design-feedback-mcp-for-github-copilot) - [Website design feedback MCP for Claude Desktop](/share/website-design-feedback-mcp-for-claude-desktop) - [Website design research MCP for Claude Code](/share/website-design-research-mcp-for-claude-code)