Set the number of columns and gutter width for a text frame in an open InDesign document. Configure multi-column layouts by specifying page, frame, and count.
Set column count and gutter for a text frame
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| gutter | No | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| frameIndex | 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 states a mutation but omits whether existing text reflows when columns change, what constraints apply (schema caps count at 12, gutter minimum 0), or whether a target frame must exist. Only the bare operation is disclosed.
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 no waste. However, it is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter mutation tool, leaving no room for the context it needs.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 80% of parameters undocumented, the description is too sparse. It omits permission requirements, reflow behavior, and the meaning of the index parameters, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would need filled.
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 20%, with only document_id documented. The phrase 'column count and gutter' names the count and gutter parameters and gives rough intent, but pageIndex and frameIndex are undocumented in both schema and description, and gutter units are never stated. It does not 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 and resource: 'Set column count and gutter for a text frame.' An agent can tell this configures columns on an existing frame, distinguishing it from text_addFrame or text_setContent. No explicit sibling differentiation is provided, but the purpose 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a frame must already exist), and no alternatives named. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Set' and the frame target.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.