Add a row to a table at a specific index in an open InDesign document. Set page and table indexes to insert rows where needed.
Add a row 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. It says nothing about whether atIndex omitted appends to the end, what document state is required, whether the mutation is reversible, or what is returned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It earns its place but is too thin for a four-parameter tool.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage needs substantially more than one sentence. Critical details about the index semantics and document targeting are missing.
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% (only document_id is described). The phrase 'at a specific index' gestures at atIndex but does not clarify its semantics (insert-before position, default behavior when omitted, or relationship to the required pageIndex/tableIndex). pageIndex and tableIndex remain undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
The description states a clear verb (add), resource (a row), and target (a table at a specific index). This distinguishes it from table_addColumn, table_deleteRow, and table_mergeCells, though it does not explicitly name 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are mentioned. The agent gets no help deciding when this tool is appropriate versus table_setCell or table_create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.