List all table styles in the active InDesign document, or target a specific open document by name or 0-based index to inspect available formatting.
List all table 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, but this is a simple read-only enumeration whose behavior is largely self-evident from 'List all'. It does not disclose whether built-in styles or style groups are included, the return shape, or ordering. Adequate for a trivial read, thin for a no-annotation tool.
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 is padded or repeated.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool this is close to sufficient, but the description says 'active document' while the schema permits targeting any open document, and it omits whether the result covers built-in styles or style groups.
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 100% and the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or defaulting detail, and its phrase 'active document' does not acknowledge that the parameter can target a named or indexed document instead.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'List all table styles'. The qualifier 'table styles' implicitly separates it from sibling listers like cellStyle_list, style_listParagraph, and style_listCharacter, so an agent can pick the right one. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or stating scope differences.
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, no prerequisite, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g., tableStyle_create for the write counterpart). Usage is only inferable from the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.