List all document links with their status and file path. Check for missing or modified assets in the front or specified open InDesign document.
List all document links with status and file path
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that results include status and file path, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it paginates, what status values mean, or any permissions needed.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool, though it is arguably too terse to serve as a complete tool description.
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 simple read-only list tool with one fully documented optional parameter, the description is nearly adequate. However, because there is no output schema, the description is the only source for return-value information, and it gives only a minimal sketch of the result fields.
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%, and the single optional document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default behavior and how to resolve a name. The description adds no parameter semantics 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?
The description gives a clear verb (List) and resource (document links) plus the fields returned (status and file path). It implicitly contrasts with sibling resources_getLinkInfo via 'all', but it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description states what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like resources_getLinkInfo or resources_updateLink. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.