Create Canva designs as documents, whiteboards, or presentations, or set custom pixel dimensions. Optionally add an uploaded asset and get an edit URL to open the design.
Create a design. preset: 'doc', 'whiteboard' or 'presentation'; or give width/height in px. Optionally insert an uploaded asset. Returns edit_url to open in the Canva editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| preset | No | ||
| asset_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a concrete behavioral fact: the tool returns an edit_url for opening in the Canva editor, which is genuinely useful. It does not mention permission/scope requirements, rate limits, or what happens if both preset and width/height are supplied, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutating 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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The preset enumeration is compact and the return value is appended efficiently.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient; stating the edit_url return value helps fill that gap. However, for a creation tool with five parameters and 0% schema documentation, guidance on parameter interactions (preset vs width/height) and permissions is missing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names the valid preset values ('doc', 'whiteboard', 'presentation'), explains that width/height are in px, and identifies asset_id as an uploaded asset. Only the required 'title' parameter is left unexplained, and it omits what happens when preset and dimensions conflict.
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?
"Create a design" states a specific verb and resource, and the added detail (preset options, px dimensions, optional asset, edit_url return) clarifies the shape of the operation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from template-based siblings like canva_make_from_template, but never names them, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never tells the agent when to pick this over canva_make_from_template, canva_import_file, or canva_import_url, all of which also produce designs. The preset-vs-dimensions choice is stated but not framed as a decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.