Set or replace the content of a specific cell in an InDesign table using document, page, table, row, and column indexes.
Set content of a specific cell
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| row | Yes | ||
| column | Yes | ||
| content | 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. |
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 behavioral burden. 'Set' implies a write/overwrite operation, but the description does not state whether existing content is replaced, whether formatting is preserved, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like.
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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity may under-specify a multi-parameter mutation 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?
Given six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the definition is missing key behavioral and parameter context needed for reliable invocation.
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 17%; only document_id has a description. The description does not explain the row, column, pageIndex, tableIndex, or content parameters, so it fails to compensate for the sparse schema documentation.
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 clear verb+resource combination: setting the content of a specific cell. It implicitly distinguishes itself from formatting siblings like table_setCellFill or table_setCellAlignment by specifying 'content', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope details.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as table_setCellFill or text_setContent. No prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.