Insert a column into a specified Adobe InDesign table at a chosen index by providing the page, table, and optional document.
Add a column to a table at a specific index
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| atIndex | No | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| tableIndex | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It doesn't state required permissions, whether the new column gets a default width/format, how it interacts with existing cell content, or whether the operation is undoable — all relevant for a destructive structural edit.
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 short front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity costs clarity on parameters and behavior.
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?
A 4-parameter structural mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and mostly undocumented parameters. The description does not supply the missing context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 only 25% (just document_id is described). The description's 'at a specific index' loosely maps to atIndex, but leaves pageIndex, tableIndex, their relationship, and the optionality/default of atIndex entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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+resource ('Add a column to a table') with the scoping notion of index. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like table_addRow or table_create, but the core action is unambiguous.
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 indication of when to use this versus table_addRow, table_create, or table_setRowColumnSize, nor any prerequisite such as a table/document needing to be open. Only implied usage via the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.