Find and replace text in an InDesign document while applying new formatting, such as bold, italic, font, size, or color, to matched text.
Find and replace text while changing formatting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | ||
| findWhat | 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. It implies a mutating find-and-replace operation, but does not disclose scope, regex behavior, undoability, permissions, or what happens to existing formatting beyond the vague phrase 'while changing formatting.'
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves important structure and detail absent, which borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 mutation tool with a nested format object, no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain behavior, scope, format-object semantics, or return/effect, so an agent cannot call it confidently.
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?
Only document_id has a schema description; findWhat, replaceWith, and the nested format object are undocumented. The description mentions formatting but does not explain the format object fields or the semantics of findWhat/replaceWith, so it adds little beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a find-and-replace action with a formatting twist, but it does not explain how formatting relates to the replacement (e.g., whether format applies to the replacement text, matched text, or both). It also does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as grep_replace, grep_findFormat, or text_findReplace, leaving the agent to infer its unique role.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus grep_replace, grep_findFormat, or text_findReplace, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess the appropriate context 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.