List all object styles in the active InDesign document, or specify an open document by name or index. Use it to inspect or manage styles.
List all object 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 behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it returns styles from all style groups or only the object style group, whether unused styles are included, or how results are ordered/returned.
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 wasted clauses. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than achieved conciseness.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, a single sentence is nearly enough, but the omission of read-only status and the scope ambiguity ('active document' vs. the document_id parameter that can target any open document) leave small gaps an agent would have to resolve by inference.
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% – the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or 0-based index, defaults to front document). The description only says 'active document', which adds nothing and slightly under-describes the parameter's ability to target any open document. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (object styles) scoped to a document, which distinguishes it from the sibling list tools style_listParagraph, style_listCharacter, tableStyle_list and cellStyle_list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the resource noun is specific enough that an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of when a different style-listing or style-creation tool is the right choice. The only implicit context is the word 'List', which tells the agent nothing about preconditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.