Add an endnote to an InDesign story by passing storyIndex and text; optionally target a document and choose numbering type.
Add an endnote to a story
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| storyIndex | 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. | |
| numberingType | No | decimal |
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 delivers almost nothing: it does not say the operation mutates the document, that a document must be open, where the endnote text is inserted relative to the story, or how numberingType affects the result. Only the bare action is disclosed.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, which is good, but for a four-parameter mutation tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Shortness here comes at the cost of missing information.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, plus low parameter coverage, mean the description should do much more work. It omits document targeting, story resolution, numbering behavior, and return/error semantics, so an agent cannot call this reliably from the definition alone.
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 only 25% (just document_id), so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what storyIndex refers to, what text is inserted, or how the numberingType enum values (decimal, lowerRoman, etc.) are applied, leaving three parameters effectively undocumented.
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 (Add) and resource (endnote) and scopes it to a story, so the agent knows this creates an endnote rather than a footnote. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling note_addFootnote, but the distinct noun 'endnote' carries that differentiation implicitly.
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 mention of the alternative (note_addFootnote) or the note_footnoteOptions sibling, and no prerequisites such as an open document or a valid story index. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.