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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

insert_merge_field

Insert a mail merge field at the end of a specified paragraph to enable personalized document generation using data sources.

Instructions

Insert a MERGEFIELD (mail merge) field at the end of a paragraph.

Args: para_id: w14:paraId of the target paragraph. field_name: The merge field name (e.g. "FirstName").

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>",
      "field_name": "<field_name>"
    },
    "name": "insert_merge_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
para_idYes
field_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present. The description explains the insertion location (end of a paragraph) but does not disclose potential side effects, requirements (e.g., document must support mail merge), or error conditions.

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: one sentence for the action and two lines for parameters. No superfluous text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description lacks information on error handling, behavior if para_id is invalid, or whether the field can be overwritten. For a mutation tool, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 carries the burden. It adds meaning by explaining para_id as 'w14:paraId' and field_name with an example ('FirstName'), which is missing from the schema titles.

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 tool inserts a MERGEFIELD (mail merge) field at the end of a paragraph. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like insert_field, insert_if_field, etc.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insert_field, insert_if_field). The description does not mention 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