Merge a range of cells in an InDesign table into one cell by specifying start and end row and column indices.
Merge a range of cells into one
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endRow | Yes | ||
| startRow | Yes | ||
| endColumn | Yes | ||
| 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. | |
| startColumn | Yes |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating operation but does not describe what happens to cell content, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the return value is.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a short tool description, though the sparseness is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.
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 tool with 7 parameters (6 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain required parameters, document context, or mutation behavior, leaving the agent with almost no operational guidance.
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 14% (only document_id is described), and the description adds no parameter names or formats. The phrase 'range of cells' vaguely hints at start/end coordinates but does not clarify the roles of pageIndex, tableIndex, startRow, startColumn, endRow, or endColumn.
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 gives a specific verb ('Merge') and resource ('a range of cells into one'), making the operation clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its likely sibling table_splitCell, so an agent must infer the difference from the tool name alone.
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 description only states what the tool does; it provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. There is no mention of table_splitCell or any condition that would select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.