List all character styles in the active InDesign document, optionally by open document ID, to inspect available text formatting definitions.
List all character styles 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 burden. It implies a read but never states that the tool is non-mutating, whether results are paginated or truncated, or what a returned style entry contains.
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 short sentence with zero waste and the scope (active document) front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a consequence of omitted information rather than disciplined editing.
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 trivial no-argument read with full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, however, the description could have said what the listing returns (names, IDs, counts), which an agent would need to chain into style_createCharacter or text_applyCharStyle.
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% and the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the name-or-index semantics and front-document default. The description adds no parameter detail, so the 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 (character styles) scoped to the active document, which cleanly separates it from style_listParagraph, style_listObject and the style_create/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of the top band.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over style_listParagraph or style_listObject, and no mention that document_id can point at another open document via document_listOpen. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.