indesign-nutria-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

toc_createStyle

Create or modify a Table of Contents style in an InDesign document, defining entry and title styles, page numbering, and included paragraph styles.

Instructions

Create or modify a Table of Contents style in the active document

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "toc_createStyle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`title`	No
`entryStyle`	No
`titleStyle`	No
`document_id`	No	Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.
`pageNumberStyle`	No		afterEntry
`replaceExisting`	No
`betweenEntryAndNumber`	No
`includeParagraphStyles`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says create/modify in the active document and omits critical context such as whether existing styles are overwritten (replaceExisting defaults to true), what happens to applied styles, and 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded, clear, and free of filler. It is appropriately concise for a one-line description, though that conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation tool with nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain parameter behavior, defaults, side effects, or document targeting nuances.

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 11% (only document_id is described), and the description adds no meaning for the other eight parameters like title, entryStyle, titleStyle, pageNumberStyle, replaceExisting, betweenEntryAndNumber, or includeParagraphStyles.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb (create or modify) and resource (Table of Contents style), so an agent knows the general operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling toc_update, which likely also modifies existing TOC styles.

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 tool versus toc_update, toc_listStyles, or toc_generate, nor are prerequisites such as document state or required permissions mentioned.

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

Deploy Server