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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_lists

Retrieves all list definitions from a Word document's numbering.xml, including abstract numbering IDs, formats, and levels. Returns empty list if no numbering exists.

Instructions

Return all list definitions from numbering.xml.

Each entry: {abstract_num_id, num_format, levels}. Returns [] if no numbering.xml exists.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_lists"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the read-only nature (get), return structure, and empty case. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe or mention any authorization requirements, which would slightly improve transparency.

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—two sentences that deliver all essential information without waste. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context: source of data, format of entries, and behavior when no data exists. It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly avoids parameter explanations. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional meaning is needed.

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 that the tool returns all list definitions from numbering.xml, specifies the structure of each entry (abstract_num_id, num_format, levels), and mentions the empty result case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_list or create_multilevel_list.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative get_* tools or list manipulation tools. Usage is implied by the description, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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