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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reply_to_comment

Reply to an existing comment in a Word document to create a threaded discussion. Provide the parent comment ID and your reply text.

Instructions

Reply to an existing comment (creates a threaded reply).

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": {
      "parent_id": "<parent_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
authorNoClaude
parent_idYes
document_handleNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states it creates a threaded reply (a write operation), but does not disclose whether it is destructive, required permissions, or side effects like modifying the parent comment's state.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. It is concise, though it could incorporate parameter guidance without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotation support, the description is insufficient for the agent to correctly fill parameters like parent_id or document_handle. The output schema exists but does not mitigate the parameter gap.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions no parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and name. The agent receives no hints about the role of parameters like parent_id or document_handle.

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 'Reply to an existing comment (creates a threaded reply).' It uses a specific verb ('Reply') and resource ('comment'), and the clarification 'creates a threaded reply' distinguishes it from similar tools like add_comment or resolve_comment.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_comment or resolve_comment. No prerequisites or context provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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