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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_content_control

Retrieve details of a specific content control in a Word document using its w:id value.

Instructions

Return details of a single content control by its w:id.

Args: control_id: The w:id value of the content control to retrieve.

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": {
      "control_id": "<control_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_content_control"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
control_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Return details' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the control_id does not exist, or if any side effects occur. Behavioral traits like safety or error handling are missing.

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 very concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear parameter definition. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), error conditions, or return value details beyond 'details.' More context would help the agent use the tool correctly.

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?

The description explains that control_id is the 'w:id value of the content control to retrieve,' which adds meaning beyond the schema that only defines it as a required string. With 0% schema coverage, this minimal explanation is helpful but still lacks format or constraints details.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Return details of a single content control' and identifies the resource by its w:id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_content_controls (which returns multiple) and add/delete/update content control tools.

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 implies usage context: retrieving details of one specific content control by its w:id. While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the parameter requirement and wording provide clear context. No exclusions are stated, but the intended use is evident.

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