Sets tab stops for a paragraph in an InDesign document. Specify position and alignment, plus optional leader and character, to control text layout.
Set tab stops for a paragraph
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabStops | 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. | |
| paragraphIndex | Yes |
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, and it says almost nothing: it does not disclose whether existing tab stops are replaced or appended, whether the document must be writable, or whether the operation is undoable. 'Set' hints at a mutation but leaves the destructive/replacement semantics ambiguous.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is 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 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent cannot reliably invoke this from the description alone. Addressing scheme, replacement behavior, and tab-stop semantics are all missing.
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 20% (only document_id is documented in-schema), so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains pageIndex/frameIndex/paragraphIndex addressing, the tabStops array shape, the position units, or the alignment/leader/character fields.
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 (tab stops) scoped to a paragraph, which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from nearby formatting siblings like text_setColumns or text_setDropCap. It is clear but adds no differentiation language against those siblings.
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 alternatives (e.g., text_setColumns, text_applyParagraphStyle) and no stated prerequisites such as an open/modifiable document with existing text frames. An agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.