List all shapes on a chosen page in an open Adobe InDesign document to inspect page contents; optionally choose the document by name or index.
List all shapes on a page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing. It does not state that this is read-only, whether locked/hidden shapes are included, ordering, or any pagination or size limits. Only the implicit 'List' verb hints at safety.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise, since it omits everything but the core action.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and one of two parameters undocumented. For a list tool whose result shape and scope are unknown to the agent, the description leaves significant gaps that structured fields do not fill.
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 coverage is 50%: document_id is well documented in the schema, but pageIndex has no description in either place. The description's 'on a page' loosely gestures at pageIndex but adds no meaning about indexing, defaults, or valid values beyond the schema's minimum: 0.
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 clear verb+resource+scope: 'List all shapes on a page'. This distinguishes it from creation siblings like shape_create and shape_rectangle_create. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other list tools (image_list, table_list, layer_list) beyond the resource noun.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g. image_list, table_list) or the conditions under which an agent should reach for shape_list. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.