Retrieve current 2D export settings for the pattern window or print layout, covering paper, orientation, resolution, and visible elements. Specify the source to get the exact configuration for that view.
Current 2D export settings (paper, orientation, resolution and what is shown) for the pattern window ("pattern") or the print layout ("print_layout").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | print_layout |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. 'Current' and the read-only framing make clear this is a query, not a mutation. It also discloses that results are scoped to either the pattern window or print layout. It stops short of describing the response shape or edge cases, but for a simple getter the core behavior is transparent.
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 a single sentence with no filler. The resource is front-loaded, the content of the settings is summarized compactly, and the parameter-related detail appears naturally at the end.
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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resource, the parameter values, and the kind of data returned. It does not spell out the exact return structure, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema provides only a type and default with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical values 'pattern' and 'print_layout' give the agent the meaningful options for the source parameter and their purpose. It would be slightly stronger if it explicitly said these are the valid values for `source`, but the mapping is clear.
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 names a concrete read operation: retrieving current 2D export settings, and it enumerates the content (paper, orientation, resolution, and what is shown). It also distinguishes the two modes, pattern window and print layout, which helps differentiate it from the many export_* sibling tools.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. However, the phrase 'Current 2D export settings' implies this is the tool to check settings before exporting, and the two source values provide useful context for when each variant applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.