Set text frame inset spacing to control padding between text and frame edges using top, left, bottom, and right values.
Set text frame inset spacing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | Yes | ||
| left | Yes | ||
| right | Yes | ||
| bottom | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that existing inset values are overwritten, what units the values use (points?), whether zero is meaningful, or whether the target frame must already exist. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 phrase with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently concise.
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?
A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 14% schema coverage needs far more than six words. Units, frame targeting, and mutation behavior are all missing, leaving the 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 description coverage is only 14% (only document_id is documented); top/left/bottom/right/pageIndex/frameIndex carry no descriptions. The description adds no meaning such as units or index semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory.
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 (Set) and resource (text frame inset spacing), which is enough to distinguish it from adjacent text_* formatting siblings like text_setColumns or text_setTextWrap. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 text_setColumns, text_setTextWrap, or other frame/text settings, nor any prerequisites or context. The agent gets the action but no routing or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.