Search fonts by name in an open InDesign document to locate and select specific typefaces.
Search fonts by name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It doesn't state that the operation is read-only (implied but unstated), whether matching is case-sensitive, substring or exact, whether missing fonts or styles are included, or what the result set looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four words, zero filler, and the search scope is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though it tips into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness for a search tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented in the schema, the description should do considerably more. An agent cannot tell what a match returns (font names, font objects, missing-font flags) or how matching is performed, which is critical for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: document_id is fully documented in the schema, but the required 'query' parameter has no schema description at all. The phrase 'by name' partially compensates by signaling that query is a font-name string, though it says nothing about partial matching or case sensitivity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Search fonts') plus the search axis ('by name'), so the agent knows this is a font lookup rather than a mutation. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling font_list, which also retrieves fonts, leaving the agent to guess which to pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is given. It never says whether this is for locating a specific font before applying it (font_change/font_list) versus enumerating all fonts, and there are several plausible sibling alternatives (font_list, font_missing_check, text_search). The agent must infer the intent entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.