InDesign MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

execute_indesign_code

Run custom ExtendScript code in Adobe InDesign to automate tasks, define logic, or manipulate documents programmatically.

Instructions

Execute custom ExtendScript code in InDesign

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "execute_indesign_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	ExtendScript/JavaScript code to execute in InDesign

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states that it executes ExtendScript code but does not warn that arbitrary code can have destructive side effects, access the file system, or require specific permissions. This is a significant omission for a code execution tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity and potential risk of executing arbitrary code, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention error handling, return values, or that this tool should be used as a last resort when no specialized sibling tool exists. The lack of warnings and context makes this inadequate for safe usage.

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?

The schema already describes the single 'code' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond that. The tool description essentially restates the parameter purpose without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'execute' and the resource 'InDesign' with a specific language (ExtendScript). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform specific operations like export or creation. However, it could be slightly more explicit about being a general-purpose fallback for operations not covered by other tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 the many specific sibling tools (e.g., export_pdf, create_rectangle). It does not mention that it is intended for advanced or custom operations beyond the provided tools, nor does it offer any exclusions or warnings.

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