Locate and substitute specific text within an InDesign document, with options for case sensitivity, whole-word matching, selection scope, or GREP patterns.
Find and replace text in the document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | document | |
| useGrep | No | Use GREP (regular expressions) | |
| findText | Yes | Text to find | |
| wholeWord | No | Whole word only | |
| replaceText | Yes | Replacement text | |
| caseSensitive | No | Case sensitive search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation and does not mention whether formatting is preserved, how replacements are applied (e.g., one-by-one or all), or the effect of options like regex or scope. This is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is efficiently front-loaded but lacks depth; however, conciseness is about economy, and this achieves that.
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?
The tool has multiple parameters and options, but the description gives no hint about return values, behavior with edge cases, or how options interact. Without annotations or an output schema, the bare description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 high (83%), with descriptions for most parameters. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find and replace text'. This is distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scope variations.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without any contextual instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.