arcgis_pro_export_map_to_imageExport a named map from an ArcGIS Pro project (.aprx) to an image file, setting output path, width, height, and DPI.
ArcGIS Pro：导出地图。返回可验证的结构化结果；写入和路径限制以服务能力为准。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes | ||
| resolution_dpi | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds only generic boilerplate ('returns verifiable structured results; write/path restrictions depend on service capabilities') without specifying overwrite behavior, required permissions, or output format. It adds little beyond the structured safety profile and does not contradict it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short and front-loads the verb, which is good, but the second clause is generic filler that applies to nearly every tool in the server rather than earning its place with tool-specific detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a file-writing export tool with 6 undocumented parameters the description omits format, overwrite semantics, and how the map/output paths relate. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters (aprx_path, map_name, output_path, width, height, resolution_dpi), so the description carries the full burden and it says nothing about any of them. Parameters are only inferable from terse titles; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb+resource (export map to image), but there are several near-identical siblings (export_layout_image, export_layout_pdf, export_active_view_image, export_report_pdf) and the description does nothing to distinguish which surface it exports from. An agent can guess the purpose but cannot confidently route between the export family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. The sibling set offers at least four other export tools, and nothing here tells the agent which one applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.