List all documents in an open InDesign book by book index to retrieve each document for selection or processing.
List all documents in a book
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bookIndex | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, whether the book must be open, or what happens with an invalid bookIndex. This is a significant disclosure gap for an unannotated tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though partly because it omits necessary detail rather than because it is efficiently complete.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter mean the description should do far more work. It does not explain the book context, the return contents, or the meaning of bookIndex, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.
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 50%: document_id is documented but bookIndex — the sole required parameter — has no description in either the schema or the description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the most important parameter's semantics (e.g. which index, how to obtain it, relative to book_list) unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List all documents in a book'), so an agent can tell it apart from book_list and book_open. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or clarify that it operates on an open book given the required bookIndex.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the book already be open?), and no mention of alternatives such as book_list or book_synchronize. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.