indesign-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_table

Insert a table into an InDesign document with precise control over position, size, row/column counts, header/footer rows, and page index.

Instructions

Create a table

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "width": "<width>",
      "height": "<height>",
      "rows": "<rows>",
      "columns": "<columns>"
    },
    "name": "create_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	Yes	X position in mm
`y`	Yes	Y position in mm
`rows`	Yes	Number of rows
`width`	Yes	Table width in mm
`height`	Yes	Table height in mm
`columns`	Yes	Number of columns
`pageIndex`	No	Page index
`footerRows`	No	Number of footer rows
`headerRows`	No	Number of header rows

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a table' and gives no information about side effects, reversibility, required document state, or any other behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single phrase like 'Create a table' does not provide enough information to justify its brevity, similar to the 'Process' example.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return value, or usage context, making it nearly impossible for an AI agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has its own description (e.g., 'X position in mm'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a table' uses a clear verb and resource, and the schema details dimensions and rows/columns. However, it lacks scope information (e.g., on which page) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_rectangle or populate_table.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open document) or exclusions, leaving the AI agent without context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.