Open an existing InDesign document from a file path, optionally displaying its window. Use it to load a file for editing or automation.
Open an existing InDesign document from file path
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | ||
| showWindow | No | ||
| 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 behavioral burden. It says nothing about what happens on a missing/invalid path, whether opening modifies the file or locks it, whether it requires an active InDesign instance, or how it affects currently open documents. For a state-changing open operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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 padding. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter details noted elsewhere rather than from trimming redundancy.
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 annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters (showWindow, filePath), the description would need to compensate and does not. An agent lacks enough information to know what the tool returns on success/failure or how showWindow behaves.
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 only 33%: document_id is well documented in the schema, but filePath and showWindow have no descriptions anywhere. The phrase 'from file path' is the only hint about filePath (format, absolute vs relative) and showWindow (the ability to open without a window) is completely unexplained.
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?
The description gives a specific verb (open) and resource (an existing InDesign document) and names the input source (file path), which clearly separates it from document_create and book_open. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.
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?
There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus document_create (new document) or preview_document, and no mention of prerequisites such as the file existing on disk. The word 'existing' is the only implicit usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.