Add a new page to the active InDesign document at a specified position: at end, beginning, before, or after a reference page.
Add a new page to the active document at a specified position
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | No | atEnd | |
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. | |
| referencePage | 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 burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about side effects on existing pages, undoability, whether it requires an open document, or what the caller gets back. For a mutation 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 no filler. It is efficient but arguably too terse, trading concision for the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description should explain the referencePage dependency and the position enum. It does none of that, so an agent invoking before/after has no indication that a reference page is needed.
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%. The description covers the position concept loosely and gestures at the document via 'active document', but it does not explain that 'before'/'after' require referencePage, nor does it clarify the enum values or the default-to-front-document behavior. It compensates for little of the coverage gap.
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 ('Add a new page') plus scope ('to the active document at a specified position'), so an agent can distinguish it from page_duplicate or page_move without opening the schema. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus page_duplicate, page_move, or page_delete, and no prerequisites stated. The 'at a specified position' phrase hints at use cases but leaves the alternative-selection logic entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.