List all hyperlinks in the active InDesign document to audit URLs, anchors, or broken links. Optionally target another open document by name or index.
List all hyperlinks 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about return format, pagination, ordering, or whether hidden/anchored hyperlinks are included. It also says 'active document' while the schema allows targeting any open document, leaving the actual scoping behavior slightly ambiguous.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope appear immediately. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally 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?
For a simple no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits what a caller gets back and how results relate to the scope implied by document_id. With no annotations and no output schema, slightly more context could have been supplied without adding noise.
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% and the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or 0-based index, defaults to front document). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (hyperlinks) with an explicit scope (active document), so an agent can tell it apart from interactive_addHyperlink and interactive_deleteHyperlink. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as interactive_listAnchors or resources_listLinks, which is the only gap.
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 mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to interactive_addHyperlink/interactive_deleteHyperlink purely from the name. No exclusions or routing hints are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.