Manage Illustrator artboards by listing, adding, removing, renaming, resizing, setting active, fitting to artwork, and rearranging them with column and spacing controls.
Illustrator: artboards — list, add [x,y,w,h], remove index, rename, resize rect, setActive, fitToArtwork, rearrange (columns, spacing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| rect | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| document | No | Document name; omit for the active document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description explicitly advertises 'remove index', which deletes an artboard — a destructive effect the annotation denies. The description also offers 'rearrange (columns, spacing)' with no corresponding action or parameters, so an agent could attempt calls the tool cannot fulfil. No permissions, side effects, or response shape are disclosed.
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 compact, front-loaded sentence — appropriately sized for a multi-action tool. However, the trailing 'rearrange (columns, spacing)' clause earns no place: it describes functionality that does not exist and misleads rather than informs.
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 7-action, 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves the action-to-parameter mapping unstated, does not say what list returns, and does not mention that removing the active artboard changes state. The phantom 'rearrange' action lowers confidence in everything else listed.
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?
With only 20% schema coverage, the description does real work: it defines the rect positional format as [x,y,w,h], ties 'index' to remove and 'rect' to resize, and implies 'name' for rename. But it invents 'columns' and 'spacing' parameters that do not exist and never states which parameters are required for which action, so it only partially compensates 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?
Opens with the specific resource ('Illustrator: artboards') and enumerates the operations it performs, so an agent can tell it is the artboard-management tool in the ai_* family (vs. ai_layers, ai_addShape, ai_modifyItems). The enumeration is however partly inaccurate: 'rearrange (columns, spacing)' is advertised but appears nowhere in the action enum, which blurs exactly what the tool can do.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as ai_newDocument, ai_getState or ai_modifyItems, and no preconditions (e.g. whether a document must be open). The action list only implies usage; an agent must infer the workflow entirely from the enum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.