Retrieve detailed information about a specific page in an open InDesign document by its index; optionally specify the document by name or 0-based index.
Get detailed information about a specific page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'Get' but never confirms read-only semantics, says nothing about behavior for an out-of-range index, and gives no sense of the shape or scope of the returned data.
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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined restraint.
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 and no output schema, the description must explain what 'detailed information' comprises and how the required index is interpreted; it does neither. For a lookup tool with an undocumented required parameter, this is inadequate.
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 50%: document_id is documented ('a name or 0-based index... defaults to the front document'), but the required 'index' parameter has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing to clarify whether index is the page position, and does not compensate for 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 (get info about a page), which is clearly distinct from mutating siblings like page_add or page_delete. However, 'detailed information' is vague about what is actually returned, and it does not distinguish itself from page_listAll or document_getInfo.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus page_listAll (to enumerate pages) or document_getInfo (for document-level info). The agent must infer that this is the per-page inspection tool purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.