Lists every table on a chosen page or throughout an open InDesign document, helping you locate and work with them directly.
List all tables on a page or in the document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | No | ||
| 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. "List" correctly implies a safe read operation and discloses the page/document scope, but it says nothing about return shape, ordering, or the behavior when pageIndex is omitted.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and wastes no words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be fully useful.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the default scope behavior and any hint of the returned table structure, which an agent would need.
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 50%: document_id is documented in the schema while pageIndex is not. The description's "on a page or in the document" loosely maps to those two parameters but adds no format or default details, so it only partially compensates.
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 and resource ("List all tables") plus a scope ("on a page or in the document"). It is clearly distinguished from single-table siblings like table_getInfo, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
The phrase "on a page or in the document" implies the two usage contexts, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer table_getInfo, and no statement of what happens when no scope is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.