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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_hyperlink

Remove a hyperlink from a paragraph while keeping the text intact. Specify the paragraph ID and URL or anchor to match.

Instructions

Remove a hyperlink wrapper, preserving the text runs inside.

The paragraph text remains; only the w:hyperlink element is unwrapped.

Args: para_id: w14:paraId of the paragraph containing the hyperlink. url_or_anchor: URL (for external) or bookmark name (for internal) to match.

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>",
      "url_or_anchor": "<url_or_anchor>"
    },
    "name": "remove_hyperlink"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
para_idYes
url_or_anchorYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the key behavioral effect: the hyperlink wrapper is removed but the paragraph text remains intact. With no annotations, this provides necessary transparency about the operation.

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 concise with two short paragraphs and an Args list. Every sentence is necessary and front-loads the main purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation. It could mention error handling or validation, but it is largely complete.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that para_id is a w14:paraId and url_or_anchor can be a URL or bookmark name. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 removes a hyperlink wrapper while preserving the text runs, and specifies that only the w:hyperlink element is unwrapped. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_bookmark or update_hyperlink.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., update_hyperlink). The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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