Place an image from a file path onto a page at specified coordinates in an open InDesign document to add visual content.
Place an image from a file path onto a page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| filePath | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the image is inline or floating/anchored, whether it needs an open document, whether placement is reversible, or what happens when optional width/height are omitted. This is a bare statement of intent for a mutating 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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why other dimensions are under-served rather than a virtue in itself.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to call it correctly (units, sizing defaults, anchor behavior, document context) and would have to guess.
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 14% (just document_id), so the description must compensate but barely does. It implies filePath and page positioning, yet says nothing about the optional width and height sizing parameters, their units, or what omitting them does (natural size vs. auto-fit), leaving three required/optional numeric parameters semantically opaque.
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?
The description states a specific verb (place), the resource (an image), its source (file path), and destination (a page), which is enough to distinguish it from image_list, image_info, or image_adjust. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related image_fit or image_relink siblings, which an agent might reasonably confuse with placement.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is the right choice over image_fit, image_relink, anchoredObject_create, or shape_create when positioning visual content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.