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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_table_style

Apply a named table style (e.g., TableGrid, LightShading-Accent1) to a table identified by index in a Word document.

Instructions

Apply a named table style (e.g. TableGrid, LightShading-Accent1) to a table.

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": {
      "table_idx": "<table_idx>",
      "style_name": "<style_name>"
    },
    "name": "set_table_style"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
table_idxYes
style_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (overwrites formatting), idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The minimal description leaves behavioral uncertainty.

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?

A single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every element serves a function.

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 tool is simple, and an output schema exists (though not described). Still, the description omits prerequisites (table existence, style availability) and error behavior, which are relevant for a complete understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by providing examples for style_name, but leaves table_idx unexplained (no guidance on how to obtain or use it). The examples help but are insufficient.

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 verb 'apply' and the resource 'named table style to a table', with concrete examples (TableGrid, LightShading-Accent1). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_table_borders or copy_table_style by focusing on applying predefined styles.

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?

The description implies when to use (to apply a predefined style) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or specify prerequisites (e.g., table existence). No guidance on when not to use.

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