Ungroup a specific group by page and group index in Adobe InDesign, optionally targeting an open document by name or index.
Ungroup a group by index
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| groupIndex | 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 burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutation, whether it is reversible via undo, what happens to the contained items, or which document must be open — all significant gaps for a structural write operation.
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 five-word sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient for a 3-parameter mutation tool.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two of three parameters undocumented, the definition is not complete enough. It omits how to obtain a valid group index, what state the document must be in, and what the result of ungrouping is.
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 only 33%: document_id is documented in the schema, but pageIndex and groupIndex have no descriptions anywhere. The phrase 'by index' does not clarify whether the index is page-relative, document-relative, or global, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource ('Ungroup a group'), which distinguishes it from the read-only sibling group_list. However, 'by index' is vague: with two required indices (pageIndex, groupIndex) the description never says which index identifies the group, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the target must currently be a group), and no pointer to group_list for discovering valid indices. The agent gets no routing help among the many group/shape tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.