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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

insert_date_field

Insert a date field at the end of a specified paragraph in a Word document. Use optional date format to customize the display.

Instructions

Insert a DATE field at the end of a paragraph.

Args: para_id: w14:paraId of the target paragraph. date_format: Date picture switch (default: @ "MMMM d, yyyy").

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": "insert_date_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
para_idYes
date_formatNo\@ "MMMM d, yyyy"

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states insertion at the end of a paragraph. It does not disclose whether the field is dynamic, if it replaces existing content, or any side effects on document structure. With no annotations, this minimal information is insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with clear parameter documentation. The use of a structured docstring format is helpful, though the core description could be more front-loaded.

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?

For a tool that inserts a field, more context is needed: the requirement that the paragraph must exist, whether the field is appended or replaced, and typical use cases. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters: para_id (target paragraph) and date_format (with default). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema titles, though it could elaborate on expected format or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it inserts a DATE field at the end of a paragraph, which is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not distinguish from related sibling tools like insert_merge_field or insert_sequence_field, missing some clarity on its unique role.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as add_field or other field-specific insert tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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