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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_comment

Replace the text of an existing comment by providing its ID and the new content.

Instructions

Replace the text of an existing comment.

Args: comment_id: ID of the comment to update. text: New comment text.

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
comment_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only states 'Replace the text', which implies mutation but provides no details on permissions, effects on tracked changes, or whether other comment properties are preserved. With no annotations, this minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. However, the docstring repetition of parameters is somewhat redundant given the schema, but it does not waste many words.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description lacks context about the tool's behavior relative to related sibling tools and does not mention any side effects or state changes (e.g., whether updating text triggers a new tracked change).

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the docstring-style listing of args adds no meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not specify expected format for 'text' or constraints on 'comment_id' (e.g., must exist).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Replace' and the resource 'text of an existing comment', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'add_comment' or 'reply_to_comment', which also modify comments.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'reply_to_comment' or 'resolve_comment'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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