Export an ArcGIS Pro layout to PDF, PNG, JPEG, SVG, or TIFF, with optional inline PNG/JPEG output for quick checking.
Export a layout to PDF / PNG / JPEG / SVG / TIFF. PNG and JPEG come back as an inline image so the result can be checked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpi | No | Export resolution. | |
| layout_name | Yes | Layout name. | |
| output_path | Yes | Output file; the format follows the extension. | |
| return_image | No | Return PNG/JPEG output inline. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / properties / dpi / descriptionAdded value: +"Export resolution."Input schema / properties / layout_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Layout name."Input schema / properties / output_path / descriptionAdded value: +"Output file; the format follows the extension."Input schema / properties / return_imageAdded value: +{
+ "default": true,
+ "description": "Return PNG/JPEG output inline.",
+ "title": "Return Image",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "export_layoutOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: format is driven by the output extension and PNG/JPEG are returned inline. It omits whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten, permission requirements, and whether the file is written to a local or server path — significant gaps for a file-writing tool.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the supported formats, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.
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?
For a 2-required-param export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers formats and the inline-image return but leaves out the side-effect profile (overwrite behavior, where the file lands). It is adequate to call, but not complete for a mutating file-export tool.
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 100%, so dpi, layout_name, output_path, and return_image are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the extension-determines-format and inline-image details, which restate what output_path and return_image already say.
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?
The description gives a clear verb (export) and resource (layout) plus the enumerated output formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like export_map_view or export_map_series, which also write rendered output to disk.
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?
The note that PNG/JPEG come back inline so the result can be checked implies a reason to pick those formats, which is a mild usage hint. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to export_map_view or export_map_series, and no prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.