Create a master spread in an open InDesign document by setting a name and page count, so you can apply consistent layouts to multiple pages.
Create a new master spread with a given name and page count
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| pageCount | No | ||
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies mutation, but it says nothing about side effects, whether the master is persisted to a document, uniqueness of the name, or the return value. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too sparse for a mutation tool, but that shortfall belongs to contextual completeness rather than structure.
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 3 parameters at 33% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the document context requirement (document_id defaulting to the front document), name-uniqueness behavior, and what is returned, leaving the agent without enough to 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 in the schema. The description names 'name' and 'page count', which maps to two of the three parameters, but adds no meaning beyond the property names and does not compensate for the undocumented constraints (pageCount range 1-10, default 1).
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 ('Create a new master spread') plus the two key inputs (name, page count), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling mutation tools like master_duplicate or master_apply. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (e.g. master_duplicate for copying an existing spread), and no prerequisites such as a document needing to be open. Usage must be entirely inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.