Retrieves Illustrator document state, including active document size, color mode, artboards, layers, selection, and item counts by type, for inspection and automation.
Illustrator: open documents and the active one — size, color mode, artboards (rects), layers (visible/locked/item counts), selection, item counts by type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | No | Document name; omit for the active document. | |
| listItems | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the returned state domains: size, color mode, artboard rects, layer visibility/lock/count summaries, selection, and item counts by type. It does not explain listItems behavior, but the read-only profile is clear.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence fragment that is front-loaded with the application and core resource. Every listed phrase maps to a concrete state field, so there is no filler.
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 state-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned categories. However, it leaves the listItems parameter behavior unclear and does not describe the exact return structure, which matters because there is no output schema to rely on.
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 coverage is only 50%: the document parameter is described in the schema, while listItems has no description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining listItems or the document-selection behavior beyond an indirect reference to open documents versus the active one.
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 clearly states this is an Illustrator state-inspection tool covering open documents, the active document, and several specific document properties. It is distinguishable from siblings like ai_artboards or ai_layers because it describes a broad aggregate state snapshot, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 description implies the tool is used to inspect document state, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing advice versus siblings such as ai_artboards, ai_layers, or ai_select.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.