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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_endnote

Update an existing endnote's text by specifying its numeric ID and the new content.

Instructions

Update the text of an existing endnote.

Args: endnote_id: The numeric ID of the endnote to update (must be >= 1). text: The new text content for the endnote.

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": {
      "endnote_id": "<endnote_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "update_endnote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
endnote_idYes

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and parameter constraints (endnote_id >= 1), but fails to mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., endnote_id not found), permissions, or idempotency.

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: two sentences followed by a clear parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool's purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks details like error handling or confirmation of success. An output schema exists (so return values are covered), but the description could still improve by noting that invalid endnote_id returns an error.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: endnote_id is the numeric ID (must be >=1) and text is the new content. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Update the text of an existing endnote,' specifying the verb (update) and the resource (text of an endnote). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_endnote, delete_endnote, and get_endnotes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as add_endnote or update_footnote. The agent must infer usage solely from the purpose, without explicit context or exclusions.

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