docx_to_mdWord .docx (by URL) → clean Markdown. Feed documents to your agent pipeline.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "docx_to_md"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the input is a URL and output is Markdown, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether the file is downloaded, if there are size limits, if it handles .docx only or other formats, or what happens on failure. For a conversion tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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 description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key info. It's efficient, but could add a bit more detail without becoming verbose. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has 1 param, no annotations, no output schema, and the description is minimal, it's incomplete. It doesn't explain the conversion process, any limitations, or what the Markdown output looks like. For a tool that takes a URL and converts, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
The schema has 1 parameter (url) with 0% description coverage, and the schema itself provides no type or description. The tool description mentions 'by URL' which adds some meaning, but it doesn't explain the URL format, whether it must be publicly accessible, or any constraints. The description partially compensates but not enough.
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 clearly states the tool converts Word .docx files (by URL) to clean Markdown, which is a specific verb+resource+output format. It distinguishes from siblings like md_to_docx (reverse direction) and other md_to_* converters, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 implies usage: feed documents to an agent pipeline, and the input is a URL. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., when you have a local file vs URL, or when you need other formats). The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.