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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_part

Read raw XML of any DOCX part by specifying its path. First list available parts with list_parts to know which parts exist.

Instructions

Read raw XML of any DOCX part (e.g. 'word/document.xml'). Use list_parts() to discover available parts.

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": {
      "part_path": "<part_path>"
    },
    "name": "read_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
part_pathYes

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?

The description correctly indicates this is a read operation (raw XML reading), which implies no destructive side effects. Given no annotations are provided, it adequately communicates the behavioral trait without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose with a concrete example, and the second provides a useful next-step reference. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's action, prerequisite (list_parts), and parameter example. Lacks only a more formal parameter definition, but overall sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides an example (e.g., 'word/document.xml') and directs to list_parts, but it does not fully explain the part_path parameter's exact format or that it is relative to the DOCX root. More precision would help.

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 it reads raw XML of any DOCX part and gives a concrete example ('word/document.xml'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_part and list_parts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit guidance to use list_parts() to discover available parts, providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other read-oriented tools or exclude alternatives.

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