Extract all text content from a specified artboard or every artboard in an Adobe XD file to retrieve design copy for documentation, QA, or design-to-code workflows.
Extract all text content from one artboard, or from every artboard if none is given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Absolute path to a .xd file | |
| artboard | No | Artboard id or name; omit for all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope-default behavior, but says nothing about read-only nature, whether hidden/locked layers are included, or what the return value looks like (plain text vs. per-artboard mapping).
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 action and immediately followed by the scope rule. No filler.
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 two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the shape of extracted text is unspecified, leaving a real ambiguity about how multi-artboard results are returned.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters and the 'omit for all' default are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates that default; baseline 3 applies.
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 (extract) and resource (text content) plus scope (one artboard vs. all). It is clear against asset/export siblings, but it never names a sibling or distinguishes text extraction from xd_extract_assets or xd_find_layers.
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 only implied: omit artboard to get everything. No guidance on when to prefer this over xd_find_layers or xd_read_raw, nor any prerequisite such as the file needing to be a valid .xd.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.