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

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

toc_update

Regenerate an existing InDesign table of contents from its story to reflect updated document content.

Instructions

Update (regenerate) an existing TOC from its story

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": {
      "storyIndex": "<storyIndex>"
    },
    "name": "toc_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
styleNameNo
storyIndexYes
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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Regenerate' hints that existing TOC content is rebuilt, but it does not state that prior entries are replaced, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions/preconditions are needed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two of three parameters undocumented, this one-line description leaves too much unstated — the agent lacks the parameter meaning and behavioral context needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 33%: only document_id is documented in the schema, while storyIndex (required) and styleName are bare. The description's 'from its story' loosely gestures at storyIndex but adds nothing about styleName, format, or defaults.

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 ('Update (regenerate)') and resource ('an existing TOC') plus the source story, so the operation is clear. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like toc_generate or toc_createStyle, leaving that to inference.

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?

The phrase 'existing TOC' weakly implies this is for refreshing rather than creating, but no alternative (toc_generate, toc_createStyle) is named and no preconditions are given. An agent must guess which TOC tool applies.

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