Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
indesign-nutria-mcp

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

resources_updateLink

Update or relink an InDesign link by index to a new file path, optionally choosing which open document to modify.

Instructions

Update/relink a specific link by index to a new file

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "linkIndex": "<linkIndex>",
      "newFilePath": "<newFilePath>"
    },
    "name": "resources_updateLink"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linkIndexYes
document_idNoWhich open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.
newFilePathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a mutation tool but discloses nothing about permissions required, whether the relink is reversible, whether it modifies files on disk, or what happens to the previously linked file. Only 'to a new file' hints at the effect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it is so terse that it omits the behavioral and usage detail an agent would want.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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, no output schema, and only 33% parameter coverage, the description does too little. It omits preconditions, side effects, error behavior, and the distinction from closely related link tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only document_id is documented in the schema). The description partially compensates by mapping 'by index' to linkIndex and 'new file' to newFilePath, but adds no format, path-resolution, or index-range detail beyond the schema's own constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb (update/relink) and resource (link) with scope ('specific link by index') and target ('to a new file'). The word 'specific' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling resources_updateAllLinks, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the 'specific link by index' scoping hints at contrast with resources_updateAllLinks, but the description never states when to use this versus image_relink, resources_embedLink, or resources_getLinkInfo, nor any prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools