InDesign MCP Server

by Tlechanteur

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

export_pdf

Export an InDesign document as a PDF with options for preset, page range, bleed, and quality settings.

Instructions

Export document as PDF with advanced options

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "export_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`preset`	No		HighQualityPrint
`filePath`	Yes	Output PDF file path
`pageRange`	No	Page range (e.g., "1-5", "all")	all
`includeSlug`	No	Include slug area
`jpegQuality`	No		High
`colorProfile`	No	Color profile for export
`includeBleed`	No	Include bleed area

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Export document as PDF' and offers no details on side effects like file overwriting, permissions, or system impact, which is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the primary action, but the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient clarity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is inadequate. It fails to explain return behavior, side effects, or any operational context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description mentions 'advanced options' but does not explain any specific parameter. Schema coverage is 71% (5/7 params have descriptions), so the description adds no value beyond the schema, and the remaining parameters (preset, colorProfile) lack meaningful semantic context.

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 states a clear verb ('Export') and resource ('document as PDF'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like export_images and export_epub, though it does not explicitly reference them.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_images or package_document. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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