Get detailed status for a specific link in an open InDesign document to verify resolution, modification, and placement status before exporting or updating.
Get detailed status for a specific link
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| linkIndex | 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 burden and does not meet it. 'Detailed status' is not unpacked — nothing about what the status contains, whether it reports broken/missing/modified links, or whether any permissions or an open document are required. The only inferable trait is that it is a read operation, from the verb 'Get'.
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, which is appropriate for a simple lookup. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description leaves key gaps: what 'status' means and how to obtain a valid linkIndex. An agent would need to guess its way through the call.
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 50%: document_id is documented inline, but linkIndex has no description and the tool description adds nothing about it — not where the index comes from (resources_listLinks) nor whether it is document-scoped. With below-half coverage the description should compensate and does not.
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 ('Get detailed status') and resource ('a specific link'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-name siblings such as resources_listLinks or image_getLinks, so the sibling differentiation element of a 5 is absent.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative tools (resources_listLinks, resources_updateLink, image_getLinks), and no statement of prerequisites. 'For a specific link' only weakly implies you first need a link index from another call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.