Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
grp-docx-mcp

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

clear_run_formatting

Remove character formatting from a run in a Word document, resetting it to inherit paragraph or style defaults.

Instructions

Remove all character formatting from a run, causing it to inherit paragraph/style defaults.

Args: para_id: paraId of the target paragraph. run_idx: Zero-based index of the run.

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": {
      "para_id": "<para_id>",
      "run_idx": "<run_idx>"
    },
    "name": "clear_run_formatting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
para_idYes
run_idxYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains the effect (clears character formatting and inherits defaults) and specifies it targets character formatting only. It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple reset tool, it is adequate.

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 consists of two short sentences plus a parameter list, all front-loaded and essential. No redundant 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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the key aspects: operation, effect, and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, additional context like required permissions or document state could improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides brief but clear explanations for both parameters: para_id as 'paraId of the target paragraph' and run_idx as 'Zero-based index of the run.' This adds value over the schema titles but lacks details like validation or range.

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 'Remove all character formatting from a run, causing it to inherit paragraph/style defaults.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_run_font or set_formatting.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when resetting formatting to defaults but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools