Apply a master spread to a specific InDesign page by providing its page index and master name.
Apply a master spread to a specific page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| masterName | 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. |
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 and discloses nothing: whether existing page overrides are preserved, whether the master must already exist, whether the action is undoable, or what happens on invalid input.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though concision here borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two of three parameters undocumented, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.
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 coverage is only 33% — only document_id is documented. The description refers to 'a specific page' and 'a master spread' but adds no format or constraint detail (index vs. name, 0-based indexing, valid masterName source) beyond what the schema already states.
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 and resource: applying a master spread to a page. However, it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling page_applyMaster, leaving an agent unable to decide between the two from the text alone.
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 (e.g. whether the page must be empty or the master must exist), and no mention of the page_applyMaster alternative that appears to do the same job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.