List all cross-references in an open InDesign document by document ID or name, so you can audit, link, or manage references without manual searching.
List all cross-references 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing beyond the read operation: no information on whether unresolved/broken cross-references are included, whether the result covers only the active document's story, or any rate/size considerations.
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 the verb and scope stated immediately and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 simple one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is largely adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent learns nothing about the shape of the returned list (names vs. IDs vs. resolved text) or about the 'active' vs. schema's 'front' document wording.
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 100%, so the schema already explains the single optional document_id parameter, including its name-or-index format and front-document default. The description's phrase 'active document' loosely echoes that 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (cross-references) bounded to the active document, which cleanly separates it from xref_create and xref_updateFormat. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
The description only implies when to use it via the verb 'List'; there is no guidance about when to reach for xref_create or xref_updateFormat instead, and no prerequisites or scope caveats are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.