grp-docx-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_reading_time

Estimate reading time for an open document by specifying reading speed. Returns word count and duration in minutes and seconds.

Instructions

Estimate reading time for the open document.

Args: words_per_minute: Assumed reading speed (default 200 wpm).

Returns: {"word_count": int, "words_per_minute": int, "minutes": float, "seconds": int}

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_reading_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`words_per_minute`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.4Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It transparently outlines that the tool estimates reading time and returns a structure with word_count, words_per_minute, minutes, and seconds. No side effects or destructive actions are mentioned, appropriately implying a safe, read-only operation.

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 highly concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a structured Arg/Returns block. Every sentence is necessary, no filler, and the formatting aids readability.

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?

Despite the output schema being present, the description still includes the return structure. The tool is simple (one optional parameter, clear output), and the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter, and return format. No critical details are missing.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It effectively documents the 'words_per_minute' parameter with its purpose and default value ('Assumed reading speed (default 200 wpm)'), going beyond the schema which only specifies type and default.

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 'Estimate reading time for the open document' with a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('reading time' for the open document). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_word_count and get_statistics by focusing on reading time estimation.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies use for reading time estimation, no guidance on exclusions or comparisons to related tools like get_word_count is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server