Lists all open books in Adobe InDesign, so you can identify which book documents are available for editing or export.
List all open books in InDesign
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 disclosure burden, and it falls short: it does not say what is returned (book filenames, paths, states), whether the call is read-only, or why a document_id would matter for a 'list all' operation. The mismatch between the parameter and the 'all open books' scope is left unexplained.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the resource being listed is front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate, though it shades into under-specification rather than pure economy.
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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves unresolved how the document_id argument interacts with listing 'all open books' and gives no hint of the return payload.
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 100%, so the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter meaning and arguably introduces tension with the parameter's 'which document to act on' semantics.
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 open books') so an agent knows the operation immediately. However, it gives no differentiation from the closely related siblings book_getDocuments and book_open, and 'all open books' appears to conflict with the document_id parameter the schema exposes.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call it to enumerate currently open books, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over book_getDocuments or book_open, and no prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.