Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Penpot MCP Server

Penpot MCP Server

by zcube
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

distribute_shapes

Evenly distribute at least three selected shapes with equal spacing horizontally or vertically.

Instructions

Distribute multiple shapes evenly with equal spacing

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>",
      "pageId": "<pageId>",
      "shapeIds": "<shapeIds>",
      "direction": "<direction>"
    },
    "name": "distribute_shapes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdYesFile ID
pageIdYesPage ID
shapeIdsYesArray of shape IDs to distribute (at least 3 shapes)
directionYesDistribution direction

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. While it implies distribution repositions shapes, it does not disclose that the operation modifies shape positions, whether it is destructive, or what 'evenly' means in terms of bounds. The behavior is under-specified.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers basic functionality. However, given the absence of annotations, it could be more complete by explaining that shapes are repositioned, how direction is applied, or any side effects. It is adequate but leaves room for interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a basic description (e.g., 'Array of shape IDs to distribute (at least 3 shapes)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 uses the specific verb 'distribute' with the resource 'shapes' and clarifies the intent 'evenly with equal spacing'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like align_shapes, which perform a different operation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as align_shapes. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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