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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

split_document

Split an open Word document into multiple DOCX files, one per heading section, to extract and process each section independently.

Instructions

Split the open document into multiple DOCX files, one per heading section.

Args: output_dir: Directory for output files. Defaults to /split_output. at_heading_level: Heading level to split on (default 1).

Returns: {"output_dir": str, "files": list[str], "parts": int}

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "split_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_dirNo
at_heading_levelNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool splits into DOCX files and mentions parameters, but it does not specify whether the original document is modified, error handling, or behavior with no headings. Basic behavior is described, but depth is lacking.

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 and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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?

Although the description explains parameters and return value, it lacks details such as content before first heading, heading level inclusivity, and error cases. With an output schema present, it partially compensates, but gaps remain.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It provides clear explanations for both parameters: output_dir (with default path) and at_heading_level (with default value). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool splits the open document into multiple DOCX files per heading section. The verb 'split' and resource 'document' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools as it is the only splitting tool.

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 usage when splitting by headings is needed, but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it, alternative tools, or prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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