Generate a table of contents on a specified page in an InDesign document using a chosen paragraph style, so readers can navigate the document.
Generate a Table of Contents on a specified page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| bounds | No | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| styleName | Yes | ||
| layerIndex | 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. |
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 says nothing about whether an existing TOC is overwritten, what permissions or open-document state are required, where the generated content comes from, or what the call returns on failure.
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 zero filler, which is the right shape for a short description. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than wasteful.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, six parameters at 17% coverage, and a nested bounds object, the definition is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent how to supply a valid styleName or what side effects the generation has on the document.
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 17% (just document_id), and the description compensates for almost nothing: 'specified page' loosely maps to pageIndex, but styleName, title, bounds (a nested object), and layerIndex are undocumented in both places. An agent cannot know what styleName should reference or what bounds controls.
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 (generate) and resource (Table of Contents) plus the scoping location (a specified page), which is enough to distinguish it from toc_createStyle and toc_listStyles. It does not clarify how it differs from the equally mutating sibling toc_update, so a 5 is not warranted.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., that a TOC style from toc_createStyle/toc_listStyles must already exist), and no routing to toc_update for refreshing an existing TOC. The agent must infer everything from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.