Export a layout's map series or map book to a multi-page PDF with control over DPI and page ranges.
Export a layout's map series (map book) to a multi-page PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpi | No | Export resolution. | |
| page_range | No | Pages to export, e.g. "1-5,8". | |
| layout_name | Yes | Layout name. | |
| output_path | Yes | Output PDF path. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the resulting artifact (a multi-page PDF written to output_path). However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing file, required permissions/ArcGIS Pro session state, or failure modes when a layout lacks a map series.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and the artifact with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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, and all four parameters are covered by the schema. The only real gap is the absence of any prerequisite or overwrite context, which is minor for a straightforward 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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Export) and resource (a layout's map series / map book) plus the output artifact (multi-page PDF). It is distinguishable from siblings like export_layout or preview_layout by name, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the layout must have a map series enabled), and no routing away from export_layout for single-page exports. The agent is left to infer the choice from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.