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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_comment_threads

Retrieve all comment threads from a Word document, including root comments and their replies, organized by thread.

Instructions

List all comment threads (root comments with their replies).

Returns a list of thread dicts: {root: {id, author, date, text}, replies: [...]}.

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": "list_comment_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility. It clearly explains the output structure (list of dicts with root and replies), which is transparent for a read-only tool. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or potential side effects, but these are likely minimal.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. The first immediately states the purpose, the second describes the output. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 no parameters and an output schema effectively described in the text, the description is complete. It tells what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for this simple list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the bar is high. The description adds value by detailing the return format, which is essential for the agent to use the tool correctly. This fully compensates for the lack of param info.

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's action ('List all comment threads') and specifies the resource ('root comments with their replies'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_comments' or 'add_comment' by clarifying the structured nature of threads.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_comments' or 'reply_to_comment'. Given the extensive sibling list, the lack of context for selection is a significant omission.

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