Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
unifiles-mcp

unifiles-mcp

by Asheng008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

word_extract_text

Extracts full text from Word (.docx) documents, outputting paragraphs and tables in document order with tables converted to Markdown.

Instructions

提取 Word 文档完整文本。

段落和表格按文档顺序输出，表格转换为 Markdown 格式。

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "word_extract_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesWord 文档路径（支持相对路径和绝对路径，仅支持 .docx 格式）

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses output behavior: text extraction with table-to-Markdown conversion and document order preservation. With no annotations, this provides reasonable transparency for a read-only extraction tool, though it doesn't address potential limitations like large files or formatting loss.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted wording. First sentence states main purpose, second adds key details on output format and order, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple single-parameter tool and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its output. Minor gaps (e.g., error handling, encoding) are acceptable for this low-complexity tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description is comprehensive, so the tool description does not need to add further parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no additional meaning is provided beyond the 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 it extracts complete text from Word documents and specifies output format (paragraphs and tables in order, tables as Markdown). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like word_extract_images and word_extract_tables by focusing on full text extraction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. While the output description implies its scope, it does not state exclusions or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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