Retrieve all fonts used in the active InDesign document to audit typography, resolve missing fonts, or prepare files for export. Specify a document by name or index; defaults to the front document.
Get all fonts used in the active document
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, whether missing fonts are included, or what the returned data looks like. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.
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 short, front-loaded sentence that identifies the scope of the operation with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or misplaced.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations it should clarify the return shape (e.g., font names) and whether missing fonts are reported, information an agent would otherwise have to discover at call time.
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 100% — document_id is fully documented in the schema (name or 0-based index, defaults to front document). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond the word 'active', so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('all fonts used in the active document'), which is clearly scoped differently from the sibling font_list (available/system fonts) and font_missing_check. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 phrase 'used in the active document' implies a reporting/audit use case, and the schema notes document_id defaults to the front document. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus font_list, font_missing_check, or font_find, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.