indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

text_setTextWrap

Control how text flows around an object in InDesign by setting its text wrap mode, side, and offset distance.

Instructions

Set text wrap preferences for an object

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pageIndex": "<pageIndex>",
      "itemIndex": "<itemIndex>",
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "text_setTextWrap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`side`	No		both
`offset`	No
`itemIndex`	Yes
`pageIndex`	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states that preferences are set, without explaining permissions, persistence, undo behavior, selection requirements, or what happens if the object type does not support wrapping.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and avoids waste, but it is so sparse that it omits necessary scoping details. It is not overlong, yet it under-delivers for a tool of this complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given six parameters, two enums, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain wrapping modes, targeting by page/item index, or how the operation interacts with sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, and the description adds no meaning for mode, side, offset, pageIndex, or itemIndex. With six parameters and most undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('text wrap preferences') for an object, making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as text_setIgnoreWrap or text_setInsetSpacing, and 'object' is ambiguous across text frames, shapes, and groups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no indication of when this tool should be used versus alternatives like text_setIgnoreWrap or text_setInsetSpacing. It also omits prerequisites, supported object types, and conditions under which text wrapping is applicable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server