Configures footnote layout, numbering, prefix, suffix, separator, and starting number for the active InDesign document.
Set footnote options for the active document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layout | No | ||
| prefix | No | ||
| suffix | No | ||
| separator | 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. | |
| numberingType | No | ||
| startingNumber | No |
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 behavioral burden. 'Set' implies a mutation, but the description omits permissions needed, reversibility, whether existing options are overwritten, and any response behavior.
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 contains no filler, but it is under-specified for a 7-parameter tool. It is concise without being appropriately sized for the operation's complexity.
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?
Given 7 parameters, 14% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It leaves usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits almost entirely undocumented.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters and schema description coverage is only 14% (only document_id is described). The description adds zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage.
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 ('Set') and resource ('footnote options') scoped to the active document. It is distinguishable from siblings like note_addFootnote and note_listFootnotes, but does not name alternatives or clarify which options are covered.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are given. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for the active document'; an agent gets no guidance on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.