Execute a sequential batch of canvas actions in one round-trip, returning the final screenshot and layer state for rapid design creation.
Executes a sequential batch of multiple canvas actions in one round-trip and returns the final visual screenshot and layer state for rapid design creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actions | Yes | Array of actions to execute in order |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses sequential execution order and that it returns a screenshot plus layer state, but omits critical batch semantics: what happens on partial failure (abort vs continue), atomicity, and any auth/rate constraints.
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 front-loaded sentence that packs purpose and return value with no wasted words. Efficient, though it crams two ideas (execution and return) without much room for nuance.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains the return (screenshot + layer state). However, for a batch-of-actions tool with high complexity and zero annotations, the absence of failure/partial-success semantics leaves a meaningful gap.
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 the schema already documents the 'actions' array and the 'action'/'params' fields. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond restating that multiple actions are executed in order, which the schema already states.
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 and resource: executing a batch of canvas actions sequentially in one round-trip. It implicitly distinguishes itself from single-action siblings (text_add, shape_add) by being the batched path, though it never names them explicitly.
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 phrase 'for rapid design creation' hints at when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. The agent must infer that this replaces repeated individual canvas calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.