Insert tabular data from a nested array into an InDesign table, using table and page indices to target the location. Optionally treat the first row as headers.
Populate table with data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Array of arrays with table data | |
| pageIndex | No | Page index | |
| tableIndex | Yes | Table index on page | |
| includeHeaders | No | First row contains headers |
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 full responsibility for behavior. It only states 'Populate table with data' without disclosing whether existing data is replaced, how headers are handled, or any side effects. No mention of tableIndex/pageIndex requirements or error conditions.
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 one short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It earns some credit for being concise, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful than a moderately detailed description.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain the tool's effect on the document and any return values. It fails to mention whether data replaces or appends, whether headers are included, or what happens on success. The 100% schema coverage helps parameters but not overall context.
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 provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, such as the structure of 'data' or the meaning of 'includeHeaders'.
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 uses a clear verb-resource structure ('Populate table') and identifies the resource as a table. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like create_table or data_merge, but the action 'populate' suggests filling an existing table, which is reasonably clear. However, it lacks detail on scope (which table, how data maps).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., table must already exist) or contrast with data_merge or edit_text_frame. There is no context about typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.