Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
indesign-nutria-mcp

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

index_addEntry

Adds an index entry for the current selection in Adobe InDesign, using a specified topic, optional subtopic, sort order, and page range settings to build a document index.

Instructions

Add an index entry for the current selection

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "index_addEntry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYes
sortByNo
subTopicNo
pageRangeNosingle
document_idNoWhich open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.
pageReferenceTypeNoregular

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation and ties execution to "the current selection," but never states whether an active selection is required, what happens without one, whether the change is reversible, or that document_id selects the target document.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is arguably under-specified for a six-parameter mutation tool rather than genuinely concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with six parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 17% (just document_id). The description adds nothing about topic, subTopic, sortBy, pageRange, or pageReferenceType, leaving five of six parameters undocumented in both the description and the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ("Add an index entry") and narrows the target to "the current selection." However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools index_createTopic and index_generate, which an agent could easily confuse with adding an index entry.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., that a text selection must exist), and no reference to the alternative index_createTopic. The agent gets no routing information among the index-related siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools