Assign an XML tag to a page item in InDesign by specifying tag name, page index, and item index.
Apply an XML tag to a page item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tagName | Yes | ||
| itemIndex | Yes | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this mutates and is undoable, whether it replaces an existing tag on the item, whether the tag must be defined first, or whether the document must be open/active — all material for a mutation tool.
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 no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy — the tool needs more context than seven words can carry.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented required parameters requires a much richer description. Missing are the target document default, tag-precondition, mutation/reversibility semantics, and any error conditions.
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 25% (only document_id is documented), so the description should compensate but does not. It never mentions tagName, pageIndex, itemIndex formats, or how the default document is resolved, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema's type constraints.
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+resource (apply an XML tag to a page item), which is clear and differentiable in spirit from siblings like xml_addTag (defining a tag) and xml_listTags. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent is left to guess whether the tag must already exist (via xml_addTag) or whether this is the right tool versus xml_import/xml_export.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.