Convert Markdown text into a formatted Word .docx file, preserving headings, lists, tables, bold/italic, and links. Returns the local output path.
Turn Markdown – e.g. an answer you just wrote – into a formatted Word document (.docx): headings, lists, tables, bold/italic and links all carry over. Returns the local output path. $0.01.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markdown | Yes | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses which Markdown constructs survive conversion, that the return is a local output path, and a $0.01 cost. It omits error/overwrite behavior when output_path already exists and any size limits, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core transformation, then return behavior, then cost. No filler and nothing buried.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full load; it covers output form and pricing but leaves two of three parameters undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for a 3-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: output_path (presumably the destination file) and idempotency_key (presumably dedupe/retry safety) are never explained. Only the markdown input is implicitly covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource (Markdown → formatted .docx) with format details, and no sibling competes for that conversion (siblings cover pdf_*, office_to_pdf, pdf_to_markdown). An agent can select it unambiguously.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"e.g. an answer you just wrote" gives a concrete usage context that routes the agent to this tool. However, no when-not conditions or explicit alternatives are named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.