indesign-nutria-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

effect_applyTransparency

Adjust an object's transparency, blend mode, knockout group, and isolated blending by page and item index to control compositing in InDesign.

Instructions

Set transparency and blend mode for an object

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": {
      "pageIndex": "<pageIndex>",
      "itemIndex": "<itemIndex>"
    },
    "name": "effect_applyTransparency"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`opacity`	No
`blendMode`	No		normal
`itemIndex`	Yes
`pageIndex`	Yes
`document_id`	No	Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.
`knockoutGroup`	No
`isolatedBlending`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the two main effects. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what it requires (valid item/page indices), or how unmentioned settings behave.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification for a 7-parameter mutation tool rather than elegance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters at 14% coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits optional toggles, target semantics, and any indication of effect or side effects.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 14% (just document_id), leaving six parameters undocumented. The description's 'blend mode' and 'transparency' loosely map to blendMode/opacity but add no enum or range detail, and say nothing about knockoutGroup, isolatedBlending, pageIndex, or itemIndex.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') plus the two effects it controls (transparency and blend mode), which maps to the opacity and blendMode parameters. It is reasonably distinct from effect_applyDropShadow/Feather siblings, though it omits the other knobs (knockoutGroup, isolatedBlending) it also governs.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., an active selection or target item), and no mention of related effect siblings like effect_applyDropShadow. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server