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

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

xml_deleteTag

Delete an XML tag by name from an open InDesign document, optionally targeting a specific document ID, to remove unwanted XML structure.

Instructions

Delete an XML tag by name

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": "xml_deleteTag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive operation via 'Delete', but does not state what happens to tagged content, whether the deletion is permanent or undoable, or what permissions are required.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though its extreme brevity leaves important details to other fields.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits side effects on tagged content, undo behavior, document targeting, and any safety context an agent would need before invoking it.

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?

The description only says deletion is 'by name', which weakly maps to the required name parameter, but adds no format, constraints, or meaning beyond that. It says nothing about the document_id parameter, and with 50% schema description coverage the description does not compensate for the undocumented name parameter.

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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (XML tag) and adds the scope 'by name', so the core action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tag tools like xml_listTags or xml_addTag, nor does it clarify whether it removes a tag definition or untags content.

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 alternatives such as xml_listTags, xml_addTag, or xml_tagPageItem. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when deletion is appropriate are provided.

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