arcpro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Export Layout

export_layout

Idempotent

Export a map layout to PDF, PNG, or other file formats with configurable DPI for raster outputs. Specify layout name and output path.

Instructions

Export a layout to a file. format: PDF (default), PNG, JPG, BMP, TIF, SVG, EPS. dpi applies to raster formats (default 150). output is a full file path.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "output": "<output>"
    },
    "name": "export_layout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`output`	Yes
`format`	No	PDF
`dpi`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint, indicating safe retries. The description adds behavioral context: output is a full file path, format defaults to PDF, dpi applies to raster formats. It does not contradict annotations and discloses key behavior beyond the structured data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds value—no redundant text. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described. The description covers essential parameter details and behavior. It does not mention error handling or file overwrite behavior, but overall is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains format (list of types), dpi (applies to raster, default 150), and output (full file path). The 'name' parameter is not elaborated, but three out of four parameters gain meaning.

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 starts with 'Export a layout to a file' which clearly states the action (export) and resource (layout). It distinguishes from siblings like create_layout, which creates but does not export, and other tools that operate on layers or selections.

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 alternatives. It implies usage when a file output is needed, but lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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