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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_field

Remove a complete complex field from a Word document by specifying its field ID.

Instructions

Remove a complete complex field (begin through end runs) from the document.

Args: field_id: Positional identifier returned by list_fields (e.g. "field_0").

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": {
      "field_id": "<field_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
field_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (remove) but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, error conditions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic deletion.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences: one for the action and one for the argument. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple deletion tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and how to get the field_id. It could mention permanence or prerequisites, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description adds significant meaning for the sole parameter 'field_id' by describing it as a positional identifier from list_fields and providing an example ('field_0'). This goes beyond the type definition.

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 removes a complete complex field from the document, using the specific verb 'Remove' and specifying the resource 'complex field'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_field, get_field, and list_fields.

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 by explaining the field_id argument comes from list_fields, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternative tools, leaving room for confusion about context.

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