Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
indesign-nutria-mcp

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

export_getMasterSpreads

List all master spreads in an open InDesign document to review or manage page templates, optionally targeting a specific document by name or index.

Instructions

List all master spreads in the active document

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "export_getMasterSpreads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_idNoWhich open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond implying a read via 'List', it says nothing about permissions, whether it covers only the front document, ordering, or size limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with zero filler and no hedging. It is efficiently front-loaded, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned (names, IDs, spread objects) and confirm it is a safe read. Neither is present, so an agent has no basis for interpreting the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents document_id, its name-or-index union type, and its front-document default. Worse, the description's framing of 'the active document' narrows the scope in a way that conflicts with the optional document_id parameter, so it adds misleading rather than helpful semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('master spreads') with a scope ('active document'), so the operation itself is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling master_list, which plausibly covers the same resource, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The description never explains how this differs from master_list, master_getPages, or master_create, which are the natural comparison points for an agent choosing a master-spread tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools