Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-canva

mcp-canva

by bryankwandou
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

canva_resize

Resize a Canva design by copying it to new dimensions using width, height, or preset; premium feature with limited free trial quota.

Instructions

Copy a design into a new size (premium; free plans get a small trial quota, reported in trial_information).

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_resize"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widthNo
heightNo
presetNo
design_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the premium gating and free-trial quota behavior plus a trial_information reference — useful context not derivable elsewhere. It omits the non-destructive/copy semantics' implications (does the original survive? is a new design id returned?) and any auth requirements.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single efficient sentence, front-loading the core purpose with the pricing caveat correctly subordinated in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure tightness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage for a 4-param mutation-like tool. The description covers purpose and pricing but leaves the caller without enough to populate width/height/preset correctly or predict the result.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It never explains width/height, the preset alternative, or whether dimensions are mutually exclusive with preset, leaving the agent to guess parameter meaning entirely.

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+resource+outcome: 'Copy a design into a new size'. An agent can distinguish this from canva_create_design (new from scratch) and canva_export (output file). It does not, however, name a sibling or explicitly contrast resizing with export/autofill.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like canva_export or canva_create_design. The premium/trial note is a constraint, not routing guidance, so the agent gets no help deciding between this and adjacent tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools