Retrieve anchor position, offset, and frame settings for a specific object and page in an InDesign document.
Get anchored object settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemIndex | Yes | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Get' implies a read, but there is no statement of what settings are returned, whether the object must exist, whether settings include position/anchor properties, or any permission requirement.
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 single sentence is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it consumes the space without conveying any information beyond the tool name. Nothing meaningful is front-loaded because nothing meaningful is present.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description must explain what comes back and how to address the target. It leaves the required pageIndex/itemIndex addressing scheme unexplained and never says which settings are returned, making it inadequate for an agent to call or interpret this tool.
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 coverage is only 33%: document_id is well documented in the schema, but the two REQUIRED parameters pageIndex and itemIndex have no description in either the schema or the description. With low coverage, the description was required to compensate, and it adds zero parameter meaning.
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 states a verb and resource ('Get anchored object settings'), so the agent knows it is a read of anchored-object settings. However, it is essentially the tool name re-expanded into sentence case, with no scope details (which anchored object, which settings) and nothing to distinguish it from anchoredObject_setProperties, anchoredObject_setPosition, or anchoredObject_release. It sits between a vague purpose and a tautology.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The sibling set contains several anchoredObject_* tools and the agent is given no criterion for choosing getSettings over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.