Sets or replaces the text content of a specified InDesign text frame by page and frame index, optionally targeting a named or indexed open document.
Set content of a text frame
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| frameIndex | 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 burden. It doesn't state that this overwrites/replaces existing frame content, whether the target frame must already exist, or any permission/side-effect behavior — significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 terse, front-loaded fragment with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized structurally, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and three of four params undescribed, the definition is too thin. An agent lacks enough context to call it correctly in edge cases.
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 only 25% (only document_id is documented) and the description adds nothing about parameters. The three required params — pageIndex, frameIndex, content — are undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap beyond what their names imply.
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 ('Set') and resource ('content of a text frame'), which pairs distinctly against the sibling text_getContent. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from other text_* mutators (setColumns, setTabs, etc.), but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about how the frame is identified. The agent must infer everything from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.