InDesign MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_replace_text

Find and replace text in an InDesign document. Specify case sensitivity, whole word matching, or use GREP for pattern-based replacements.

Instructions

Find and replace text in the document

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": {
      "findText": "<findText>",
      "replaceText": "<replaceText>"
    },
    "name": "find_replace_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No		document
`useGrep`	No	Use GREP (regular expressions)
`findText`	Yes	Text to find
`wholeWord`	No	Whole word only
`replaceText`	Yes	Replacement text
`caseSensitive`	No	Case sensitive search

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation and does not mention whether formatting is preserved, how replacements are applied (e.g., one-by-one or all), or the effect of options like regex or scope. This is a significant gap.

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 filler words. It is efficiently front-loaded but lacks depth; however, conciseness is about economy, and this achieves that.

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?

The tool has multiple parameters and options, but the description gives no hint about return values, behavior with edge cases, or how options interact. Without annotations or an output schema, the bare description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 high (83%), with descriptions for most parameters. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find and replace text'. This is distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scope variations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without any contextual instruction.

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