InDesign MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

apply_color

Apply a named color swatch to an object's fill or stroke in InDesign. Provide object index, page index, and swatch name.

Instructions

Apply color to an object

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": {
      "objectIndex": "<objectIndex>",
      "swatchName": "<swatchName>"
    },
    "name": "apply_color"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`property`	No		fill
`pageIndex`	No	Page index
`swatchName`	Yes	Color swatch name
`objectIndex`	Yes	Object index on page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, what document changes occur, or any error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that modifies objects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, terse sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations. It could include more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain side effects, required object context, or what 'apply color' entails (fill/stroke), leaving major gaps in operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, with descriptions for swatchName, objectIndex, and pageIndex, plus an enum for property. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Apply color to an object' clearly names the action and target, distinguishing it from siblings like create_color_swatch and apply_paragraph_style. However, it lacks specificity about the color property (fill vs stroke) and how the object is identified (objectIndex), so it's not fully precise.

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 apply_paragraph_style or create_color_swatch. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.