Lists every group on an InDesign page by index, enabling you to inspect and process grouped objects within the active document.
List all groups in a page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| 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. 'List' implies a read, but nothing is said about ordering, whether nested groups are included, or result size — and there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 sentence with no padding, and the scope is front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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 two-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify what a 'group' is here and what pageIndex means. Neither is covered, leaving real ambiguity an agent could act on incorrectly.
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 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, but pageIndex has no description. Worse, the description's word 'page' is ambiguous against the required 'pageIndex' — it is unclear whether this indexes a document page or a pagination window, and the description does nothing to resolve that.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('List all groups') plus a scope ('in a page'), which is enough to distinguish it from group_ungroup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling listers like shape_list or table_list, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., a document must be open). The agent is left to infer that group_list is the read-only counterpart to group_ungroup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.