Lists every interactive button in an open InDesign document, optionally by name or 0-based index, so you can inspect or target them.
List all buttons 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 disclosure burden. It confirms this is a read/list operation implicitly, but says nothing about scope (document-wide vs. page-level), whether nested/hidden buttons are included, permission needs, or result shape.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere rather than being 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry return-value and safety context; it does neither. For a listing tool, an agent cannot tell what a 'button' entry contains or how results are structured.
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 and its default-to-front-document behavior are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'active document' phrasing merely restates that default, adding no new semantics.
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+resource: 'List all buttons in the active document'. An agent can tell what it does, but the description offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as interactive_listHyperlinks or interactive_listAnchors, so it does not fully earn a 5.
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, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. The phrase 'active document' is the only scoping hint, and it does not tell the agent when to reach for this tool versus interactive_listAnchors or page_listAll.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.