Retrieve a table’s row, column, and cell content details by page and table index to inspect InDesign document data.
Get detailed info about a table (rows, columns, cell contents)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about whether this is read-only, what the returned detail looks like, or any limits on large tables — leaving the behavioral profile largely inferred.
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 tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity veers into under-specification rather than pure 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to explain the return shape and clarify the two undocumented required parameters. It does neither, so an agent lacks enough context to call it confidently or interpret the result.
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 only 33% (only document_id is documented). pageIndex and tableIndex carry no descriptions in either schema or description, and the phrase 'rows, columns, cell contents' describes output, not the required parameters, so the description does not compensate for the 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (table) and clarifies the scope of 'info' as rows, columns, and cell contents. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling table_list, which an agent could reasonably confuse for inspection purposes.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The read intent is only implied by the verb 'Get'; nothing tells the agent when to reach for table_getInfo versus table_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.