Find and replace text in a chosen InDesign document, story, or selection using search and replacement strings.
Find and replace text content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | document | |
| 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 implicitly signals a mutation via 'replace', but discloses nothing about irreversibility/undo, case sensitivity, permission or open-document requirements, or what happens when no match is found. For a write operation this is a substantial gap.
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 single five-word sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so there is no wasted text. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise, leaving the structure with nothing to organize. Adequate form, insufficient substance.
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 4-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, 25% schema coverage, and a dense field of find/replace siblings, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: scope semantics, default target document, and mutation side effects. Only the core action is communicated.
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%: only document_id is documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for findWhat, replaceWith, or the scope enum, whose 'document' vs 'story' vs 'selection' distinction is materially important and completely unexplained. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.
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 verb pair and a resource ('find and replace' + 'text content'), so the basic action is inferable, but it adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name text_findReplace. It gives no scope, no distinction from siblings like grep_replace, grep_find, or text_search that also operate on text. This is the definition of a minimally viable, vague purpose.
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 the many overlapping siblings (grep_find, grep_replace, grep_findFormat, grep_replaceFormat, text_search, text_searchFormatting). No prerequisites (e.g., an open document) or exclusion conditions are stated. The agent must guess which find/replace variant applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.