List all Table of Contents styles in the active InDesign document to reuse or manage them in your workflow.
List all Table of Contents styles in the active document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read-only enumeration scoped to the active document (useful context), but it says nothing about whether the operation is safe/non-destructive, what the returned entries look like, or whether any state is required beyond an open document.
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?
One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return shape (whether styles are names, counts, or full definitions) entirely unspecified. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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?
The single document_id parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including the name-or-index form and the front-document default, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'in the active document' roughly restates the default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (Table of Contents styles) scoped to the active document, which cleanly separates it from toc_createStyle, toc_generate, and toc_update. It is clear on its own, but it does not name a sibling or otherwise differentiate itself explicitly against them.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (toc_createStyle to add a style, toc_generate/toc_update to act on the TOC). The usage is only inferable from the verb 'List'; an agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.