InDesign MCP Server

by Tlechanteur

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

export_images

Export InDesign pages as PNG, JPEG, TIFF, or GIF images with configurable resolution, page range, and bleed area.

Instructions

Export pages as images

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": {
      "folderPath": "<folderPath>"
    },
    "name": "export_images"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No		PNG
`pageRange`	No	Page range	all
`folderPath`	Yes	Output folder path
`resolution`	No	Export resolution in DPI
`includeBleed`	No	Include bleed area

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting side effects (e.g., creating image files), file naming, overwrite behavior, or permission requirements. The export action implies file creation, but this is not made explicit.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using five words to state the core purpose. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise, so a slightly lower score than 5 is warranted.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to mention required parameters, output behavior, or interaction with document state. The agent would need to infer key details from the schema alone.

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 80% (4 of 5 params described), so the description does not need to compensate heavily. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'Export pages as images' uses a specific verb (export) and resource (pages) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like export_pdf and export_epub by specifying image output. It is concise 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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., open document), or scenarios where export_pdf or export_epub would be more appropriate.

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