Creates a new index topic in an open Adobe InDesign document, using a required topic name and optional parent topic to organize index entries.
Create a new index topic
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent | 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. |
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 implies a mutation ('Create') but says nothing about persistence, duplicate-topic handling, whether the topic is immediately usable by index_generate, required permissions, or reversibility. That is a significant gap for a write tool.
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 is efficient and front-loaded with the core action, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely tight prose. Nothing is wasted, yet nothing beyond the name is contributed.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set including index_addEntry/index_generate/index_listTopics, the definition omits hierarchy semantics, document scoping, and workflow position. An agent would be guessing.
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% (only document_id is documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, and in particular never explains the 'parent' parameter — essential for understanding that topics form a hierarchy — nor the semantics of 'name'.
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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Create a new index topic'), so the agent knows the operation is a creation of an index topic. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as index_addEntry, index_listTopics, and index_generate, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus index_addEntry or index_generate, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether an index must exist, or whether the topic requires a document context). Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.