Lists all layers in the active sketch with their types, visibility, and key properties, so you can inspect and manage the design structure.
List all design layers in the active sketch with their types, visibility, and key properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sketchId | No | Target sketch ID (default: selected sketch) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-shaped return payload (types, visibility, key properties), which establishes this as a non-mutating inspection call, but it says nothing about permissions, ordering, pagination, or whether it fails when no sketch is active.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, no filler. It could be tightened ('key properties' is vague) but nothing is wasted.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional param this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations, the '-esque key properties' phrasing leaves the actual return shape under-specified. An agent still doesn't know exactly what fields come back or in what order.
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?
There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage stating 'default: selected sketch'. The description's phrase 'in the active sketch' roughly echoes that default but adds no new semantics such as whether sketchId overrides the active selection.
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 (list) and resource (design layers) with scope (active sketch) and hints at returned fields (types, visibility, key properties). It is distinguishable from design_get_layer (single layer fetch) by the 'all' quantifier, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as design_get_layer or the other design_list_* tools. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step before calling get/update layer tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.