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

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

shape_line_create

Create a graphic line on an InDesign page by setting start and end coordinates; optionally choose stroke color, weight, and target document.

Instructions

Create a graphic line on a page

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": {
      "pageIndex": "<pageIndex>",
      "x1": "<x1>",
      "y1": "<y1>",
      "x2": "<x2>",
      "y2": "<y2>"
    },
    "name": "shape_line_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
x1Yes
x2Yes
y1Yes
y2Yes
pageIndexYes
document_idNoWhich open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.
strokeColorNo
strokeWeightNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says it creates a line. It omits what happens on success/failure, whether a document must be open, what the coordinate space is, and whether the new line is selected or returned.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise.

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?

For an 8-parameter, 5-required mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 13% schema coverage, one seven-word sentence is wholly inadequate to call it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 13% — just document_id is described. The description does not compensate at all, leaving x1/y1/x2/y2, pageIndex, strokeColor, and strokeWeight entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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+resource: creating a graphic line on a page. This cleanly distinguishes it from shape_rectangle_create, shape_ellipse_create, and shape_polygon_create, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the other shape_* creators or shape_create, and no prerequisites (e.g. an open document, a valid page). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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