Create ellipse shapes in InDesign documents by specifying position, width, height, fill color, stroke color, and stroke width for automated layout tasks.
Create an ellipse shape
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X position in mm | |
| y | Yes | Y position in mm | |
| width | Yes | Width in mm | |
| height | Yes | Height in mm | |
| fillColor | No | Fill color | |
| pageIndex | No | Page index | |
| strokeColor | No | Stroke color | |
| strokeWidth | No | Stroke width in points |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It only repeats the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., adds to the document, uses pageIndex), required permissions, or interaction with the active document. The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name.
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 no filler. It is front-loaded with the action, but it is so minimal that it offers little beyond the tool name. Still, it is not verbose, so it scores average.
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?
For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the function returns, how it behaves on page changes, or any required context like an open document. This is significantly under-specified.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, relying entirely on 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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'ellipse shape', indicating the tool's purpose. However, it lacks any scope such as 'on the active page' or 'in the current document', which prevents it from fully distinguishing from other creation tools.
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 like create_rectangle or create_text_frame. It does not mention prerequisites, target page, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.