Create a cross-reference in the active InDesign document by linking source text to a paragraph, anchor, table, footnote, or endnote target.
Create a cross-reference in the active document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sourceText | Yes | ||
| targetName | Yes | ||
| targetType | 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. | |
| appliedFormat | No | Full Paragraph & Page Number |
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, and it discloses almost nothing: 'Create' implies mutation but there is no mention of permissions, undo impact, whether the target must already exist, or what happens on a missing source/target name. Only the 'active document' scoping is conveyed, which is thin for a write operation.
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 clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy – useful clauses about the target and format are simply absent.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 20%-covered schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot reliably call it without inferring how source text maps to target type/name or what the format parameter accepts.
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 20% (document_id is the lone documented parameter), so the description must compensate for sourceText, targetType, targetName, and appliedFormat. It adds nothing – no explanation of what sourceText anchors, what the enum target types mean, or what the default format string does.
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 ('Create') and resource ('cross-reference') plus the scope ('active document'), so an agent understands the operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling xref_list or xref_updateFormat, so the agent gets no help choosing among related xref tools.
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 guidance on when to use this versus xref_list/xref_updateFormat, nor prerequisites such as needing an open document or an existing target. The agent is left to infer both context and ordering from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.