grp-docx-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bulk_replace_text

Replace multiple text strings in all body paragraphs of a Word document, correctly handling text split across runs.

Instructions

Find and replace text across all body paragraphs, handling text split across runs. replacements maps search_text -> replacement_text (case-sensitive).

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": {
      "replacements": "<replacements>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_replace_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`replacements`	Yes
`document_handle`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.4Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that replacements are case-sensitive and handles run-splitting, but does not mention whether changes are tracked, reversibility, or authentication needs. The mutation aspect is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences: first states the action and a key behavior (handling runs), second explains the parameter. No redundant words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the core behavior, parameter format, and case sensitivity. It could mention whether it applies to all body paragraphs (already stated) and if it affects headers/footers, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'replacements' mapping (search_text -> replacement_text) and case-sensitivity. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail the 'document_handle' parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: find and replace text across all body paragraphs, handling runs. The name 'bulk_replace_text' and the sibling 'replace_text' differentiate scope (bulk vs single), and 'handling text split across runs' adds specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description mentions 'across all body paragraphs' and 'case-sensitive', giving clear usage context. It implies when to use this tool (bulk replacement) vs the sibling 'replace_text', but does not explicitly state exclusions or when-not-to-use.

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

Deploy Server