Return all pages covered by a specific story using its story index, so you can identify where that story appears in an InDesign document.
Get all pages covered by a specific story (for finding which pages a story lives on)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storyIndex | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only query, what happens with an out-of-range storyIndex, or how the pages are represented. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but no permissions, error behavior, or result shape is described.
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 padding. The parenthetical is mildly redundant with 'pages covered' but does clarify intent, so it largely earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description should convey the return shape, but 'all pages' is vague (page indices? page objects? names?). Combined with the unexplained required storyIndex and zero annotation coverage, the definition is too thin for reliable invocation.
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 only 50%: document_id is documented in the schema (name via document_listOpen or 0-based index, defaults to front document), but storyIndex is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning to compensate for that 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 ('Get all pages covered by a specific story'), which is unambiguous about the direction of the mapping. However, it never names the inverse sibling document_getPageStories, so the agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.
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?
The parenthetical 'for finding which pages a story lives on' restates the purpose rather than giving when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer document_getPageStories (the reverse lookup) or any prerequisite/context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.