Inspect active InDesign document setup: retrieve page count, dimensions, and margins by name or index, defaulting to the front document.
Get detailed information about the active document including page count, dimensions, and margins
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the enumerated return fields give useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, or side effects, and no output schema exists to fill the gap.
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 zero waste. Slightly under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally efficient.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields (page count, dimensions, margins) is a genuine help. However it never reconciles 'active document' with the optional document_id parameter, and no output schema exists to clarify the full return shape.
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 100% and the document_id description already explains the name-or-index convention and the front-document default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema and its phrase 'active document' arguably conflicts with the parameter's ability to target a non-active document.
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 ('Get detailed information about the active document') and enumerates the returned fields (page count, dimensions, margins). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like document_getState or document_getPageStories.
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 agent must infer that this is the general document-metadata tool versus document_getState or page_getInfo from the field list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.