List every cross-reference anchor in the active InDesign document. Use this to find and manage anchors for cross-referencing.
List all cross-reference anchors in the active document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about permissions, output format, ordering, or pagination, which are the details an agent would want before calling a listing 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 wasted words, which is appropriate for a simple listing tool. It is perhaps too terse to carry any additional guidance, but as conciseness it is clean.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is thin for its role. An agent cannot tell what an anchor entry looks like, how it differs from xref_list output, or when this is the right tool, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 100%, so the document_id parameter (name or 0-based index, defaults to front document) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies. It also loosely says 'active document' while the schema allows targeting another open document, a minor mismatch.
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 specific verb (List) and resource (cross-reference anchors) scoped to the active document, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling xref_list, which an agent could easily confuse for the same listing operation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With siblings like xref_list, interactive_listHyperlinks, and interactive_listButtons present, the agent gets no help choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.