Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Adobe XD MCP

Adobe XD MCP

by srayan-uxd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

xd_font_report

Reports fonts used in an Adobe XD file or artboard—families, weights, sizes, install status, missing-weight substitutions, and license notes—so you can flag missing fonts before rebuilding.

Instructions

Fonts used by the file (or one artboard): family, weights/styles, sizes, how often, whether each family is installed on this computer, a substitution table for missing weights (e.g. Medium -> Regular), and a licence note. Run this before rebuilding a design elsewhere and warn the user about missing fonts. Only reads font names; never creates or alters fonts.

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "xd_font_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesAbsolute path to a .xd file
artboardNoArtboard id or name; omit for the whole file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Given there are no annotations, the description provides critical behavioral constraints, specifically stating that the tool 'Only reads font names; never creates or alters fonts.' This manages expectations regarding data mutation.

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?

The definition is extremely efficient. It uses a multi-part description to transition logically from data points collected, to recommended usage, and finally to technical boundaries, ensuring every phrase adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The definition is highly complete for a reporting tool. It defines the scope (file/artboard), the output contents (the full report), and its safety profile (read-only nature).

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?

While the schema is comprehensive, the description adds semantic value by clarifying that the 'artboard' input allows for reporting on specific boards versus the entire file, which is a key operational detail.

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 defines the tool's purpose: generating a font report. It specifies the resource (XD files/artboards) and lists exactly what data points are collected (family, weights, license, installation status, etc.).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The tool provides explicit usage guidance, stating it should be run 'before rebuilding a design elsewhere' and used to 'warn the user about missing fonts.' This is a perfect use-case recommendation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools