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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_run_underline

Set the underline style of a specific text run within a paragraph, choosing from single, double, dotted, or none.

Instructions

Set underline style on a specific run in a paragraph.

Args: para_id: paraId of the target paragraph. run_idx: Zero-based index of the run. style: Underline style (e.g., "single", "double", "dotted", "none").

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>",
      "run_idx": "<run_idx>"
    },
    "name": "set_run_underline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
styleNosingle
para_idYes
run_idxYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a mutation operation, any side effects (e.g., overriding existing underline), error conditions, or required permissions. The description lacks critical behavioral transparency.

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 one sentence and bullet-style arg explanations. It avoids fluff but could be more structured (e.g., using proper parameter listing).

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?

The description covers the basic action and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidelines, error handling, and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value documentation, but completeness is still moderate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It explains each parameter: para_id as the target paragraph ID, run_idx as zero-based index, and style with examples. This adds value beyond schema structure.

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 sets underline style on a specific run in a paragraph, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify other run properties (e.g., set_run_color, set_run_font).

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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites or contextual cues. The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.

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