Run a preflight check on the active InDesign document to catch print or output errors before generating final files.
Run a preflight check on the active document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | 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. | |
| waitForCompletion | No |
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 does not disclose whether the check is read-only, what it validates, whether it can modify the document, what permissions are needed, or what a failure looks like.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its extreme brevity leaves a three-parameter, annotation-free tool under-specified rather than genuinely concise for the task at hand.
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 33% parameter coverage, the description should at minimum explain the check's scope, what profile controls, and how waitForCompletion affects behavior. It supplies none of this, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently.
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%: profile and waitForCompletion are undocumented, and the description adds no parameter semantics. Worse, 'active document' implies only the front document, understating document_id's ability to target another open document by name or index.
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?
Names a specific operation (preflight check) on a document, and the purpose is distinguishable from export actions at a high level. However, it says 'active document' even though document_id allows targeting any open document, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from export_document or preview_document.
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 term 'preflight' implies this is used before an export, but the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives such as export_document or preview_document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.