mcp-canva

by bryankwandou

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

canva_export

Export a Canva design as PNG, JPG, PDF, MP4, GIF, or PPTX and return download URLs for the exported files.

Instructions

Export a design (png, jpg, pdf, mp4, gif, pptx). Returns download URLs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "design_id": "<design_id>"
    },
    "name": "canva_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`pages`	No
`format`	No	png
`design_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the key behavioral trait that the tool returns download URLs rather than the file bytes. It says nothing about whether exports are synchronous or async, how long they take, or permission requirements, so significant behavioral gaps remain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action and the return value front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the return value, which matters since there is no output schema, and it compensates partially for the 0% parameter coverage by listing formats. However, for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations it leaves design_id sourcing, pages semantics, and operational behavior unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the format values (png, jpg, pdf, mp4, gif, pptx), which the schema's plain-string 'format' field omits, but adds no meaning for 'design_id' or the optional 'pages' parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (design), and lists the output formats, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like canva_get_design or canva_get_pages, but the export/download action is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a design must exist for the given design_id), and no routing away from alternatives such as canva_get_design or canva_get_pages. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Export'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.