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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

demote_list_item

Demote a list item by increasing its indentation level up to 8. Requires a paragraph ID and works only on list items.

Instructions

Increase the list indentation level (ilvl) of a paragraph by 1, maximum 8.

Returns {para_id, ilvl}. Raises ValueError if paragraph is not a list item.

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>"
    },
    "name": "demote_list_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
para_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect (increase ilvl by 1, max 8), return value, and error condition. It does not contradict any annotations. Lacks mention of whether it modifies the document (likely implied) but is transparent enough.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded: the action and limit. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the action, constraint, return, and error. It could mention that it modifies the document, but that is inferred. Sufficient for correct usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that the para_id identifies a paragraph and that it must be a list item, providing enough context beyond the parameter name alone.

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 action: 'Increase the list indentation level (ilvl) of a paragraph by 1, maximum 8.' It specifies the resource (paragraph) and the change (increase indentation), distinguishing it from siblings like promote_list_item which does the opposite.

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 the tool is for list items only via the error condition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like promote_list_item or other list manipulation tools. No direct comparison or exclusion guidance.

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