list_fontsFetch fonts available in Illustrator without requiring an open document; filter by family or name and set a maximum number of results.
List fonts available in Illustrator. Does not require an open document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max fonts to return (default 100) | |
| filter | No | Filter by family or name (case-insensitive partial match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0-local.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a genuinely non-annotated operational fact — that the call works without an open document — which changes how an agent sequences it relative to document-dependent tools.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the operational note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
A zero-required-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations needs little more than this. The only minor gap is that no return shape is described and there is no output schema, so an agent cannot anticipate the result format (e.g., truncation behavior under the limit).
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 100%: both limit and filter are documented in the schema with their semantics and default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so this is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (fonts) scoped to Illustrator, which is unambiguous and distinguishable from other 'list_*' siblings like list_text_styles and list_graphic_styles. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, which would be needed for a 5, but no sibling overlaps its resource.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'List fonts available in Illustrator' plus the note that no open document is required tells the agent this can be called as a standalone query. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or how the limit/filter options should be used to scope the call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.