Inspects the active document's canvas hierarchy, including pages, layers, frames, styling, and bounding boxes, to help understand layout structure before editing.
Inspeksi hierarki kanvas dokumen aktif: halaman, layer, frame, styling, dan bounding box.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Kedalaman inspeksi tree layer | |
| allPages | No | Periksa seluruh halaman |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspeksi' implies a read, but the description never states that it is side-effect free, how large the returned hierarchy can get, or that cost/size scales with the depth and allPages parameters.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the inspected aspects are listed compactly. Slight deduction because the list of aspects doubles as the only clue about return shape rather than being framed that way.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey what comes back; it partly does by naming pages, layers, frames, styling, and bounding boxes. It still omits the shape of the result (tree vs flat), pagination or size limits, and the fact a document must be open — all relevant for a two-parameter inspection tool.
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 100%: both 'depth' (tree depth, default 4) and 'allPages' (check all pages, default false) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about how depth interacts with output size or what the default scope (current page only) actually is, so 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 ('Inspeksi') plus resource ('hierarki kanvas dokumen aktif') and enumerates the inspected aspects: pages, layers, frames, styling, bounding boxes. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like set_properties or create_node, but it does not distinguish it from figcraft_inspect_document (effectively the same tool) or from audit_layout/screenshot which are adjacent read operations.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over audit_layout, screenshot, or the duplicate figcraft_inspect_document, and no prerequisites. The only contextual cue is the word 'aktif' (active document), which implies a document must already be open but never says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.