Export specified Inkscape pages as individual validated PDFs named page-NNN.pdf, ensuring stable file names for downstream workflows.
Exports explicit Inkscape pages as individually validated PDFs with stable page-NNN.pdf names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| pageIds | No | ||
| workspaceId | Yes | ||
| outputDirectory | Yes | ||
| expectedRevision | Yes | ||
| expectedOutputRevisions | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | Yes | ||
| strategy | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only destructiveHint=false, so the description adds genuine value by disclosing validation ('validated PDFs') and the naming contract ('stable page-NNN.pdf names'). It still omits overwrite/conflict behavior and what happens on a revision mismatch, which matters for a tool carrying expectedRevision.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, target, and output naming convention are all packed in without waste.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described) and annotations cover the safety profile, a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and only one annotation leaves too much unexplained – revision/concurrency semantics and page-selection behavior are absent.
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, yet the description explains none of them. It gestures at pageIds ('explicit pages') and the output location ('page-NNN.pdf names'), but leaves expectedRevision, workspaceId, and expectedOutputRevisions entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.
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 specific verb (Exports) and resource (explicit Inkscape pages, as PDFs), and the phrase 'explicit ... pages' implicitly distinguishes it from the whole-document export_pdf sibling. However, it never names the alternative, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (export_pdf, document_export). The agent can only infer from 'explicit pages' that this is the per-page variant; nothing tells it which tool to pick or what preconditions apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.