Identify embedded objects like MathML formulas or graphics in a text frame to understand their properties and content.
Analyze embedded objects (MathML formulas, graphics, etc.) in selected text frame or specified frame
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | No | Page index | |
| frameIndex | No | Text frame index (optional if frame is selected) | |
| maxObjects | No | Maximum number of objects to analyze |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Analyze' suggests a read-only inspection, but the description does not state side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the frame or objects.
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 concise sentence with the core action front-loaded and clarifying examples in parentheses. It is efficient and easy to scan, though 'etc.' is a minor vagueness.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotation, so the description should explain what the analysis returns or what effects it has. It only states the tool's scope, leaving agent expectations about output and behavior incomplete.
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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only slight context about selected versus specified frames, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 specific verb and resource: analyze embedded objects such as MathML formulas and graphics, and scopes it to a selected or specified text frame. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_text_problems and get_selected_objects, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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?
The description implies usage by mentioning selected or specified frames, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or close-sibling comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.