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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_footnote

Remove a footnote and its corresponding in-body reference from a Word document by specifying the footnote ID.

Instructions

Delete a footnote and its in-body reference.

Removes the footnote definition from footnotes.xml and removes the footnoteReference run from the document body.

Args: footnote_id: The numeric ID of the footnote to delete.

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": {
      "footnote_id": "<footnote_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_footnote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
footnote_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are absent, so description carries the burden. It discloses removal from both footnotes.xml and document body, but lacks details on reversibility, error handling, or permission requirements.

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?

Highly concise: one-line summary, two lines of behavioral detail, then Args. Front-loaded with no extraneous content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers core functionality. However, lacks usage context and error conditions, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. Description adds 'numeric ID' and 'to delete', which adds little beyond the schema's type and title. No additional constraints or format specifications.

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 deletes a footnote and its in-body reference, distinguishing it from siblings like add_footnote, update_footnote, and get_footnotes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., footnote must exist), or when not to use. The tool has multiple sibling tools with similar operations, but no explicit recommendations.

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