Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
indesign-nutria-mcp

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

cellStyle_list

Lists all cell styles in an open InDesign document, active or specified by name/index, so agents can inspect available table styling options.

Instructions

List all cell styles in the active document

Tool call template

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": "cellStyle_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_idNoWhich open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about the return shape, ordering, pagination, or what happens if no document is open. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves meaningful gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. Nothing to trim.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a trivial read-only list tool with no required parameters this is roughly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description never tells the agent what a listing yields (names? IDs?) or how to use the result in follow-up calls. Minimum viable but with a clear gap.

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%, and the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or 0-based index, defaulting to the front document). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb (list) and a specific resource (cell styles in the active document). An agent can distinguish it from cellStyle_create without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closely related style_listParagraph/style_listCharacter/tableStyle_list siblings, which is the only thing that would push it to a 5.

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?

The description only says what it does, not when to reach for it. It never mentions the alternative listing tools (style_listParagraph, style_listCharacter, tableStyle_list) that an agent must choose between, nor any precondition such as needing an open document.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools