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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lock_content_control

Prevent editing of a Word document content control by locking it with a specified tag. Select lock type to apply restrictions.

Instructions

Lock a content control to prevent editing.

Args: tag: Tag name of the control to lock. lock: Lock type — sdtLocked|contentLocked|sdtContentLocked.

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": {
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "lock_content_control"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYes
lockNosdtLocked

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions lock types but does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, side effects on existing locks, or authorization requirements. The description is minimal.

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 two lines plus an arg list. It front-loads the purpose. The arg list partly duplicates schema but is acceptable. Could be slightly shorter by integrating into prose.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description covers the basic action and parameters. However, it lacks context about document state requirements (e.g., document must be open) and potential failures.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'tag' as the tag name and lists the three lock types for the 'lock' parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the differences between lock types, which limits value.

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 action ('Lock a content control'), the resource ('content control'), and the purpose ('to prevent editing'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like add_content_control or update_content_control.

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, nor any prerequisites (e.g., content control must exist). The description does not address situations where the control is already locked or which lock type to choose.

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