Repairs all broken or modified links in an open InDesign document by re-establishing references to their files. Target a document by name or index, or default to the front document.
Re-establish all broken/modified links
| 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the operation is reversible, whether missing/broken links are embedded or left untouched, whether the document must be open, or whether modified links are silently overwritten — all material for a mutation tool.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the under-specification captured in other dimensions.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not describe the outcome (what happens to broken vs. modified links), the return value, or failure behavior, so an agent lacks what it needs to invoke it confidently.
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?
There is a single optional parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains document_id accepts a name or 0-based index and defaults to the front document. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully documented schema is appropriate.
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?
Names a verb ("Re-establish") and a resource ("all broken/modified links"), and the word "all" implies a bulk counterpart to the sibling resources_updateLink. However, "re-establish" is ambiguous — it does not say whether links are repointed to their original paths, relinked to a new location, or embedded, so the agent cannot be fully sure what the operation does.
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 bulk operation versus resources_updateLink, resources_embedLink, or image_relink. No prerequisites (open document, available source files) or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.