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

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

section_setNumbering

Update a section's page numbering by setting its start page and numbering style in an open InDesign document.

Instructions

Update page numbering for a section

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": {
      "sectionIndex": "<sectionIndex>",
      "pageNumberStart": "<pageNumberStart>"
    },
    "name": "section_setNumbering"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It indicates a mutation but omits side effects, required permissions, reversibility, and how existing numbering is affected.

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 wasted words. It is structurally concise, though perhaps too terse for a 4-parameter mutation tool, but the sentence itself earns its place.

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

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations, no output schema, low schema coverage, and a mutation operation: the one-sentence description is not nearly complete enough for correct invocation. It leaves usage, behavior, and parameter meanings to be inferred.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (document_id alone is documented). The description does not name or explain sectionIndex, numberingStyle, or pageNumberStart, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('page numbering for a section'), making the purpose identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like section_delete or section_list, but the domain-specific resource is clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer that this applies when changing page numbering for an existing section, with no explicit conditions or sibling routing.

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