Merge CSV data into InDesign documents to generate personalized PDF or INDD files. Specify data source, output folder, and record range for batch production.
Perform data merge operation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileFormat | No | ||
| recordRange | No | Record range (e.g., "1-10", "all") | all |
| outputFolder | Yes | Output folder for merged documents | |
| dataSourcePath | Yes | Path to CSV data source | |
| confirmDestructive | No | REQUIRED: Confirm bulk file creation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, such as the generation of multiple files (implied by confirmDestructive), required permissions, or any destructive nature. The description gives no information about what the operation actually does at a behavioral level, making it impossible for an agent to anticipate consequences.
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?
While the description is only one sentence long, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not front-load critical information or earn its brevity. The sentence is too generic to be useful and fails to convey the tool's purpose or behavior.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, a confirmDestructive flag, no annotations, no output schema), the description is entirely insufficient. An agent has no understanding of what a data merge does, what the parameters mean, or what the tool will produce. This is a severe gap that makes the tool effectively unusable without external documentation.
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 high (80%), with descriptions for outputFolder, dataSourcePath, recordRange, and confirmDestructive. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify how the parameters relate to the merge operation or provide usage examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.
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 'Perform data merge operation' is extremely vague and essentially restates the tool name. It does not specify what data merge entails, what inputs it takes, or what output it produces. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_document or export_pdf, leaving an agent unclear on when this tool is appropriate.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would favor data_merge over other tools. An agent has no context to decide if this is the right tool for a task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.