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

grp-docx-mcp

by Arvindh95Censof
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

write_part

Replace a specific part of a DOCX document with new XML after validating well-formedness.

Instructions

Replace a DOCX part with new XML. Validates well-formedness first. WARNING: Direct XML manipulation can corrupt the document if used incorrectly.

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": {
      "part_path": "<part_path>",
      "xml": "<xml>"
    },
    "name": "write_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xmlYes
part_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.4

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses validation ('validates well-formedness first') and a warning about potential corruption. However, lacks details on validation scope, impact on relationships, or error handling. Without annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences plus a warning. Main action is front-loaded. While efficient, could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for purpose and caution).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (raw XML manipulation), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description lacks necessary context. It does not explain how to find part_path, what validation entails, or what the output schema contains. The warning is helpful but insufficient.

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%, yet the description barely explains parameters. 'part_path' and 'xml' are implied but not described in terms of format, allowed values, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Replace a DOCX part') with the resource ('DOCX part') and the new content ('new XML'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'read_part' and other update tools by emphasizing low-level XML manipulation.

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?

Implied usage for advanced XML manipulation, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus higher-level alternatives like 'update_paragraph' or 'replace_text'. No mention of prerequisites or 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