Split a merged table cell in Adobe InDesign using page, table, row, and column indexes, with optional horizontal or vertical division.
Split a merged cell
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rowIndex | Yes | ||
| vertical | No | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| horizontal | No | ||
| tableIndex | Yes | ||
| columnIndex | 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. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what happens if the target cell is not merged, how vertical/horizontal flags interact, or what the result 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?
A single very short sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The brevity leaves critical gaps that a useful definition would fill.
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 the complexity (7 params, mutation of table structure), no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not give an agent enough to call the tool correctly.
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 documented). Seven parameters exist, including the semantically important vertical and horizontal booleans, yet the description provides zero meaning for any of them. With low coverage the description must compensate and it does not.
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 names a specific verb (split) and resource (merged cell), so it is not vague. However it is nearly a restatement of the tool name, adds no scope about which table/cell is affected, and does not differentiate itself from the obvious sibling table_mergeCells.
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 versus alternatives such as table_mergeCells, nor any prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.