Find and replace text across Adobe InDesign documents, stories, or selections using GREP patterns to update content precisely.
Find and replace text using GREP pattern
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | document | |
| grepWhat | 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. | |
| replaceWith | Yes |
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 behavioral burden for a mutating tool, yet it says nothing about permissions, irreversibility, undo grouping, or what happens to matches in background stories. 'Find and replace' implies mutation but the blast radius is undisclosed.
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?
A single short sentence with zero padding, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than from tight editing. It is front-loaded and readable, just thin.
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?
For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and mostly undocumented parameters, the description should explain scope behavior, target resolution, and replace semantics. None of that is present.
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 description coverage is only 25%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating 'GREP pattern' for grepWhat. The scope enum (document/story/selection) and the document_id target are never mentioned in the description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 pair (find and replace) plus the resource (text) and the method (GREP pattern), which differentiates it from the read-only sibling grep_find. It stops short of naming any alternative tool by name, so an agent must infer the boundary with grep_find, grep_replaceFormat, and text_findReplace.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as grep_find (search only) or text_findReplace (plain-text replace), and no indication of prerequisites like having a document open. The agent gets a capability statement and nothing about selection conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.