List every page in an open InDesign document with its properties, optionally choosing the document by name or index.
List all pages in the active document with their properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never explicitly states the operation is read-only/non-destructive, nor does it disclose return shape, ordering, or whether it paginates. 'List' weakly implies a read, but the description leaves the safety profile to inference.
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. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope.
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?
This is a low-complexity read tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is nearly sufficient. However, with no annotations it should at least confirm read-only behavior and clarify what 'properties' are returned; it leaves those gaps.
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 100%, so the document_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema including its name/index/default semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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: 'List all pages in the active document with their properties.' The scope ('all pages') is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like page_getInfo (single-page info) or document_getStoryPages, so the agent must infer which lister to use.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as page_getInfo for a single page. The name implies a listing use case, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.