teguma

get_page_layout

Get the spatial structure of a Penpot page as a compact tree, revealing frame hierarchy, layout types, gaps, and sizing to plan creation or modification.

Instructions

Get the layout structure of a Penpot page as a compact tree. Shows frame hierarchy, layout types (flex/grid), gaps, and sizing. Use to understand spatial structure before creating or modifying elements.

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>",
      "pageId": "<pageId>"
    },
    "name": "get_page_layout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`depth`	No	Max nesting depth to include (default: 2, max: 5)
`fileId`	Yes	Penpot file ID
`pageId`	Yes	Page ID to inspect

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the output is a compact tree with specific details, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-mutating, list required permissions, or describe potential errors.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: first states purpose, second details output content, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately hints at return type ('compact tree') and content. It could be improved by explicitly stating it is read-only and clarifying the depth parameter's effect. Overall, sufficient for a simple read 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?

All three parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about the output but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the layout structure of a Penpot page as a compact tree, detailing frame hierarchy, layout types, gaps, and sizing. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_element' or 'get_components', which have different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides context by stating 'Use to understand spatial structure before creating or modifying elements,' indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it nor name alternative tools.

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