Link two InDesign text frames to thread text flow from a source page/frame to a target page/frame.
Link (thread) two text frames together
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. | |
| sourcePageIndex | Yes | ||
| targetPageIndex | Yes | ||
| sourceFrameIndex | Yes | ||
| targetFrameIndex | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the operation. It does not disclose that text flows from source to target, what happens if frames are already linked, ordering constraints, or any side effects/requirements for this mutation.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste and no redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits flow direction, preconditions, and the meaning of the required index parameters, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.
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 coverage is only 20% — document_id is documented, but the four required index parameters (source/target page and frame indices) have no descriptions. The brief phrase 'two text frames' hints at source/target but does not explain the index semantics or that direction matters, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 (link/thread) and resource (two text frames), which is enough for an agent to grasp the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely-related siblings like text_unlinkFrames or text_addFrame, but the pairing of 'link' with 'text frames' is unambiguous.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., frames must exist, direction of flow), and never mentions the obvious alternative text_unlinkFrames. An agent must infer everything about applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.