Generate an index on a specified page of an open Adobe InDesign document, optionally setting title/bounds and including book documents.
Generate the index on a specified page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| bounds | No | ||
| 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. | |
| includeBookDocuments | No |
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 omits whether this inserts new content into the document, overwrites an existing index, requires an open/active document, or has side effects on the page layout — significant gaps for a document-mutating 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally tight, but the terseness comes at the cost of specification rather than being genuinely concise.
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?
With 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, a nested bounds object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say much more about the target page, prerequisites, and result. It leaves most of what an agent needs to call this correctly unstated.
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 20%: only document_id is documented in the schema. The required pageIndex and the 'title' and 'bounds' properties are undocumented anywhere; the description only gestures at 'a specified page' without clarifying indexing base or whether bounds/title control the generated index block.
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 ('Generate') and resource ('the index') plus a scope detail ('on a specified page'). However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related siblings index_addEntry, index_createTopic, and index_listTopics, which all operate on the same index feature.
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, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether index topics/entries must already exist or whether this replaces an existing index page.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.