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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_image_size

Resize an embedded image in a Word document by updating its EMU extent attributes with new width and height in centimetres using the image's relationship ID.

Instructions

Resize an embedded image by updating its EMU extent attributes.

Args: rId: The relationship ID of the image to resize. width_cm: New width in centimetres. height_cm: New height in centimetres.

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": {
      "rId": "<rId>",
      "width_cm": "<width_cm>",
      "height_cm": "<height_cm>"
    },
    "name": "set_image_size"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rIdYes
width_cmYes
height_cmYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions 'EMU extent attributes' but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or constraints on image types. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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: one sentence for the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section. No fluff, front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values are covered), the description adequately explains the action and parameters. It could mention that the image must already be embedded, but that is implied by the 'rId' parameter. Overall, complete for a simple resize tool.

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 explains each parameter: rId as 'relationship ID', width_cm and height_cm with units ('centimetres'). With 0% schema description coverage, this adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's mere property names and types.

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 ('resize an embedded image') and the mechanism ('updating its EMU extent attributes'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like insert_image, delete_image, set_image_alt_text, etc., which have different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. However, the purpose is straightforward, and given the sibling list, the context is implicit. Lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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