Retrieve all colors, gradients, and tints from the active InDesign document so you can inspect or reuse its full swatch set.
Get all swatches (colors, gradients, tints) from 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. 'Get' correctly implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but it says nothing about return format, pagination, or whether the result includes swatch groups and inks. For a simple list operation this is acceptable but 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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Every clause (the parenthetical type enumeration) 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?
For a read-only listing tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and from which document. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the similarly named color_swatch_list sibling.
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 single optional document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default to the front document. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Get all swatches') and enumerates the swatch types (colors, gradients, tints), so the agent knows what it retrieves. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling color_swatch_list, which by name appears to cover the same ground, leaving overlap unresolved.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as color_swatch_list or color_ink_list. The agent must infer the choice purely from tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.