List all paragraph styles in an open InDesign document by document name or 0-based index, defaulting to the front document.
List all paragraph 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 operation via 'List', but never confirms read-only behavior, scoping to the active document only (the param allows other documents), or the shape of the result. For a no-annotation tool this is a thin disclosure.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed and nothing is buried.
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 simple enumeration tool with one well-documented optional param and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema present it does not indicate what is returned (names, IDs, styles), and it omits that the document_id can target non-active documents, leaving minor gaps.
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?
The single document_id parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the name-or-index format, the default to front document, and a pointer to document_listOpen. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (paragraph styles) scoped to the active document. It clearly distinguishes itself from style_listCharacter and style_listObject by naming the style type, though it never explicitly names those siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied by the clear verb+resource: an agent can infer you call this to enumerate paragraph styles. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no mention of how this relates to text_applyParagraphStyle or the other style_list* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.