Close an open InDesign document and control save behavior: save, skip saving, or prompt. Target a document by name or index; defaults to the front document.
Close the active InDesign document with save options
| 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. | |
| saveOptions | No | no |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it does not disclose that closing may discard unsaved changes, what saveOptions 'no' versus 'ask' does, or whether a prompt appears. The phrase 'with save options' hints at the save control but explains none of its consequences.
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 appropriately sized for a simple tool, though terseness contributes to the behavioral and parameter gaps rather than resolving them.
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 mutating close operation with no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, this is too thin. It omits save-option semantics, unsaved-change behavior, and the active-versus-document_id inconsistency.
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 well documented, but saveOptions has no schema description and the tool description only says 'with save options,' adding no meaning about the yes/no/ask enum or the default of 'no.' The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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: closing an InDesign document. It is clearly distinct from document_save, document_open, and document_create. Minor tension: it says 'active' document while document_id lets callers target any open document.
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 guidance on when to close versus save first, no mention of unsaved-change behavior, and no alternatives named. Only the implied act of closing is conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.