Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
indesign-nutria-mcp

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_applyToSelection

Apply a named list to the current text selection in Adobe InDesign, with optional list level and target document.

Instructions

Apply a list to the current text selection

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "listName": "<listName>"
    },
    "name": "list_applyToSelection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelNo
listNameYes
document_idNoWhich open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that the action targets the current selection. It says nothing about whether this mutates existing formatting, requires an existing list definition, is undoable, or what permissions/state are needed for a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the target scope front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a third of parameters documented, the description is too thin. An agent lacks the prerequisites, parameter meaning, and effect disclosure needed to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% — listName and level have no descriptions — and the description adds nothing about the list name format or what level (default 1) controls. It merely implies a list name exists, leaving the two undocumented parameters unclarified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (apply) plus resource (list) plus target scope (current text selection) — an agent can distinguish it from list_applyToParagraph by the 'selection' vs 'paragraph' target. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the list must already be defined via list_define), and no mention of alternatives like list_applyToParagraph or list_restartNumbering. The selection-based target is the only implicit cue.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools