List all available paragraph, character, or object styles in an InDesign document to identify formatting choices.
List all available styles in the document
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_styles"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| styleType | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, whether it includes hidden or built-in styles, or what the return format is. The verb 'list' implies reading, but no behavioral details are added.
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?
A single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate for a basic read operation, but it does not mention possible return values, filtering, or any behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer. Given the low complexity, this is minimally viable.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It completely omits the styleType parameter and its filter options, despite those being essential for non-default behavior. The schema itself is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaningful value.
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 action (list) and the resource (available styles in the document). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_color_swatches or list_layers, though it doesn't mention the optional styleType filter, which slightly narrows the scope in the 'all' default sense.
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, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description is only a bare functional statement with no context for the AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.