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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_hyperlink

Update the target URL of an existing hyperlink in a Word document using its relationship ID.

Instructions

Update the target URL of an existing external hyperlink relationship.

Args: r_id: The relationship ID (e.g. "rId7") to update. new_url: The new target URL.

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": {
      "r_id": "<r_id>",
      "new_url": "<new_url>"
    },
    "name": "update_hyperlink"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
r_idYes
new_urlYes

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates mutation but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error conditions (e.g., if the relationship doesn't exist), or whether the modification is in-place or reversible.

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?

Very concise: two sentences plus an args list. Purpose is front-loaded, no wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacks details on return values or error scenarios. An output schema exists, so return info is not mandatory, but more context on preconditions would improve completeness.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning. It explains r_id as 'the relationship ID (e.g. rId7)' and new_url as 'the new target URL', which is helpful beyond the raw schema types.

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 action (update), the resource (external hyperlink relationship), and what is being updated (target URL). It distinguishes from siblings like add_hyperlink, remove_hyperlink, and list_hyperlinks.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., add_hyperlink or remove_hyperlink). The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for 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