Retrieve every section defined in the active Adobe InDesign document, or target a specific open document by name or index, to review and manage page numbering structure.
List all sections in the active document
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a non-destructive read, which is useful, but the description never confirms read-only semantics, doesn't describe the return shape (e.g., section names vs indices), and adds no scoping caveats beyond the single clause.
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 tight sentence with no filler and the resource/scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves no room for the routing or behavioral context an agent might want.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent can call it correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the read-only nature and return content unstated, so it is complete only at a bare-minimum level.
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 document_id (name or 0-based index, defaulting to the front document) is already fully documented. The description's phrase 'active document' only loosely echoes the schema default and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 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 ('List') and resource ('sections') scoped to the active document, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling set (section_create, section_delete, section_setNumbering), though the 'list' verb makes the distinction reasonably inferable.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to section_create/section_delete purely from the tool name, with no stated prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.