illustrator-mcp

Align Selection to Artboard

illustrator_align_selection

Idempotent

Align selected objects to the active artboard using horizontal (left, center, right) and vertical (top, middle, bottom) options.

Instructions

Align selected objects relative to the active artboard.

Args:

horizontal ('left'|'center'|'right'), optional
vertical ('top'|'middle'|'bottom'), optional.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "illustrator_align_selection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vertical`	No	Vertical alignment.
`horizontal`	No	Horizontal alignment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that alignment is relative to the active artboard, which is important behavioral context not in annotations. No contradictions found.

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?

The description is brief with a clear opening sentence and a structured args list. Every part is relevant, though the args list could be integrated into prose. No waste, but slightly repetitive of schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple alignment tool with 0 required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the action and scope. It lacks examples or edge cases, but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both optional enum parameters. The description restates the parameter names and enums (left/center/right, top/middle/bottom) without adding further meaning (e.g., combined behavior or default). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Align selected objects relative to the active artboard,' which specifies the verb (align), the resource (selected objects), and the reference (artboard). This distinguishes it from siblings like illustrator_arrange_selection or illustrator_transform_selection.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others (e.g., aligning relative to each other vs. to artboard). It implies usage via the scope 'relative to the active artboard,' but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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