Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
indesign-nutria-mcp

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

text_unlinkFrames

Detach a text frame from its InDesign thread so it becomes independent, using page and frame indexes to target the exact frame.

Instructions

Unlink a text frame from its thread

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pageIndex": "<pageIndex>",
      "frameIndex": "<frameIndex>"
    },
    "name": "text_unlinkFrames"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageIndexYes
frameIndexYes
document_idNoWhich open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to disclose anything beyond the bare action: no note on what unlinking does to the thread's text flow, whether it is reversible, what errors occur if the frame is not threaded, or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness for a mutation tool with three parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-annotation mutation tool with 33% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description should explain threading semantics, error cases, and parameter meaning. It omits all of this, leaving the agent under-informed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only document_id is documented), so the description needed to compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. pageIndex and frameIndex are left entirely to the schema's type/minimum constraints, with no explanation of what a frame index refers to or how frames are ordered.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (unlink) and resource (a text frame from its thread), which is concrete enough for an agent to grasp. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling text_linkFrames, though the inverse relationship is inferable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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_linkFrames or any other tool, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The single sentence leaves usage entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools