Export all text content from an Adobe XD file as JSON or CSV for translation or review, with CSV cells protected against spreadsheet formula injection.
Export all text content (a copy deck) for translation or review, as json or csv. CSV cells are protected against spreadsheet formula injection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Absolute path to a .xd file | |
| format | No | json | |
| artboard | No | Artboard id or name; omit for the whole file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that CSV cells are protected against spreadsheet formula injection and that output can be json or csv, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how output is delivered, or what errors may occur.
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?
The description is two compact clauses with no wasted text. The core purpose and output formats are front-loaded before the CSV safety detail.
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 three-parameter export tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output formats. However, it omits the artboard filtering behavior and does not clarify whether the export returns data or writes a file, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 67%, so the schema already documents the file and artboard parameters. The description adds context for the format choice and CSV safety but does not explain the artboard filter or add syntax beyond the enum.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Export all text content (a copy deck).' It also states the output formats, json or csv. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool xd_extract_text, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The phrase 'for translation or review' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as xd_extract_text. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.