Zovo Word to PDF

Inspect Word file

inspect_word

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants to know what a Word .docx file contains before converting it: counts of headings, paragraphs, list items, tables, cells, images, footnotes and sections, the page size and margins, and which element types would not be carried into a PDF (text boxes, shapes, charts, headers, footers, comments) with counts. Makes no PDF and does not edit the file.

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_word"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes	The Word document to inspect, e.g. contract.docx (a .docx file up to 15 MB).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`counts`	Yes
`outline`	Yes
`not_carried`	Yes
`source_name`	Yes
`outline_count`	No
`carried_with_rule`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates the inspection counts produced and explicitly notes that text boxes, shapes, charts, headers, footers, and comments are reported as elements that would not carry into a PDF. It does not describe response format or limits, but those are largely covered by the output schema and schema annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the usage condition, then enumerates the reported contents and the key limitation. Every clause carries information relevant to selecting and understanding the tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given that annotations already establish safe read-only behavior, the schema fully documents the file parameter, and an output schema exists, the description provides all the missing context an agent needs: what is inspected, what unsupported elements are reported, and that it neither converts nor edits.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the nested file parameter and its fields are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the general notion that the file is a Word .docx, without adding new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('inspect' a 'Word .docx file') and states exactly what it reports: counts, page size/margins, and unsupported element types. It also distinguishes itself from the conversion sibling by explaining it is for inspection before converting and that it makes no PDF.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when to use it ('when the user wants to know what a Word .docx file contains before converting it') and when not to rely on it for conversion ('Makes no PDF and does not edit the file'). The alternative, convert_word_to_pdf, is implicitly but clearly identified via the 'before converting' framing.

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

All Zovo Word to PDF tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?