Search text within a specific InDesign story using a GREP pattern; returns match positions and context.
Search text within a story using a GREP pattern, returning match positions and context
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | GREP search pattern | |
| timeout | No | ||
| maxResults | No | ||
| storyIndex | 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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (match positions plus context). However it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how maxResults/timeout bound execution, or whether results are paginated, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
One compact sentence with the key noun (GREP pattern) and outcome (positions and context) front-loaded, and no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it leaves real gaps untouched.
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?
A 5-parameter read tool with 40% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema needs more than a single line. Story scoping, document targeting, result caps and timeout semantics are all unaddressed, so the definition is not sufficient to call the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It implies the pattern is GREP and that searching is scoped to a story, but maxResults, timeout and their defaults/limits are undocumented in both places, and storyIndex is never explained.
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 (search), resource (text within a story), method (GREP pattern) and result shape (match positions and context). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like grep_find or text_findReplace, so an agent still has to guess which search tool applies.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. With grep_find, grep_findFormat, text_findReplace and text_searchFormatting in the sibling set, the agent gets no help choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.