NexDoc Design

Export design

export_design

Export a job as pdf, html (ZIP of the site), png (ZIP of PNG pages/slides/artboards), or pptx (editable PowerPoint, slide decks only) and return a short-lived download_url. Prefer pdf for print/slides/cards; html for web landing pages; png when the user wants images; pptx when the user wants to edit a slide deck in PowerPoint. pptx returns 400 for anything that is not a Reveal deck. This is the standard download step — do not publish unless the user asks.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "format": "<format>"
    },
    "name": "export_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	Yes
`job_id`	Yes
`run_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No
`run_id`	No
`expires_at`	No
`commit_hash`	No
`download_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 11, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / format / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "pdf",
-  "html",
-  "png"
-]New value: +[
+  "pdf",
+  "html",
+  "png",
+  "pptx"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / commit_hash

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / run_id

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations establish only the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world); the description adds genuinely new behavior: the returned URL is short-lived, pptx returns 400 for non-Reveal decks, and this is the standard download step rather than a publish action. It stops short of covering permissions, rate limits, or what the ZIP contents look like, but the constraint disclosure is well above baseline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the capability and formats, followed by selection heuristics and then constraints. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information (format choice, 400 behavior, publish exclusion) with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter export tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, format tradeoffs, and the key failure mode. The only real gap is the unmentioned run_id semantics and permissions/auth requirements for a non-read-only tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the params. It compensates strongly for 'format' by explaining what each enum value produces and the pptx-only-Reveal limitation, but job_id and run_id receive no explanation at all — notably the optional run_id's role is never clarified. The most important parameter is well served, the other two are not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (a job) and enumerates the four concrete output artifacts (pdf, html ZIP, png ZIP, pptx), plus the return value (short-lived download_url). An agent can immediately tell this apart from publish_design or create_design.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit format-selection rules (pdf for print/slides/cards, html for web landing pages, png for images, pptx for editable decks) and an explicit exclusion ('do not publish unless the user asks'), which routes the agent away from publish_design. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance the dimension asks for.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All NexDoc Design tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?