InDesign MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_character_style

Define a new character style to apply consistent font, size, color, and tracking across text in Adobe InDesign documents.

Instructions

Create a new character style

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_character_style"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Style name
`fontSize`	No	Font size in points
`tracking`	No	Character tracking
`baseStyle`	No	Base style to inherit from
`fontStyle`	No	Font style (Regular, Bold, Italic)
`textColor`	No	Text color
`fontFamily`	No	Font family

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the name and provides no details on side effects, return values, error handling, or how the new style interacts with the document.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, clean sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but does not elaborate on usage or behavior, which slightly limits its value.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient. It omits return behavior, preconditions, and operational context, making the tool harder to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a basic description (e.g., 'Font size in points'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'character style', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_paragraph_style. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_paragraph_style. The description does not mention typical use cases or exclusions.

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