Retrieves the layer tree for one Adobe XD artboard by ID or partial name, returning positions, sizes, fills, strokes, text, and fonts for design-to-code or QA.
Get the layer tree of one artboard (positions, sizes, fills, strokes, text, fonts). Match by id or name (partial ok).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Absolute path to a .xd file | |
| depth | No | Max nesting depth to expand | |
| artboard | Yes | Artboard id or name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the parenthetical field list (positions, sizes, fills, strokes, text, fonts) does real work in describing what comes back. However, it is silent on ambiguous partial matches (what happens if several artboards match), missing-file behavior, and read-only guarantees.
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; the core action and returned data are front-loaded and the matching rule follows immediately.
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?
Without an output schema, the field enumeration partially substitutes for a return-value spec, and depth limits are covered by the schema. The remaining gap is behavior on ambiguous or failed matches, which an agent would need before calling confidently.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters, and the description still adds genuinely new semantics for `artboard` by noting partial matching is allowed. `depth` and `file` are left entirely to the schema, which is adequate given full coverage.
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 and resource ('Get the layer tree of one artboard') and enumerates the returned properties, which cleanly separates it from xd_list_artboards. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
'Match by id or name (partial ok)' gives lookup guidance, but there is no statement of when to use this instead of xd_export_artboard, xd_find_layers, or xd_read_raw, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool's scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.