target-mcp

render_checklist_docx

Create a submission-ready Word checklist from a TARGET assessment, showing evidence and verdicts per manuscript section, and return the docx file as base64.

Instructions

Write the completed TARGET checklist to a Word (.docx) file and return it. Same content as render_checklist (published item wording + a Location-reported column from the resolved evidence spans; enriched view adds verdict and evidence), serialized as a submission-ready landscape table, one per manuscript section. Pass a full assessment object or the manuscript_id of one assessed this session. view='official' strips to the published form's three columns.

RETRIEVING THE FILE: the return carries the document bytes as base64 in content_base64 (with content_type and filename) — decode and save these to get the deliverable. The file is ALSO written to path on the server host, but that filesystem is not the caller's: if you are an agent whose files live elsewhere, use content_base64, not path. path defaults to a writable temp dir and is only directly useful for server-local/batch runs.

logo=True heads the document with the published TARGET banner, but ONLY on view='official' (the author's self-report form); on the enriched view it is ignored and the returned logo_applied is False, because the official mark on a machine-generated assessment would imply an endorsement the instrument does not carry. Default off.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`logo`	No
`path`	No
`view`	No	enriched
`assessment`	No
`manuscript_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`view`	No
`bytes`	No
`n_rows`	No
`filename`	No
`content_type`	No
`logo_applied`	No
`content_base64`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it goes well beyond a basic summary. It discloses the base64 return payload, the caveat that the server filesystem path is not the caller's and content_base64 should be used instead, and the nuanced logo behavior where the banner is ignored on the enriched view and logo_applied is False.

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 dense but every section earns its place: purpose, content differences, retrieval instructions, path caveat, and logo behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear paragraph headers to separate retrieval and logo guidance, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the five parameters, zero annotations, and the need to explain file retrieval and view-specific behavior, the description covers everything required to call the tool correctly. It explains how to obtain the deliverable, the effect of each key parameter, and the subtle logo restriction, leaving no critical gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains the alternatives assessment vs. manuscript_id, the meaning and effect of view='official', the semantics of path as a server-local temp location that callers should avoid, and the behavior of logo including its default off state.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write the completed TARGET checklist to a Word (.docx) file and return it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from render_checklist and render_checklist_html by specifying the docx serialization and the added Location-reported column, so an agent can identify which sibling to invoke.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong context: it explains when to pass an assessment object vs. manuscript_id, how view='official' changes the output, and what logo=True does. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of render_checklist_html when you need a Word document,' but the docx naming and 'serialized as a submission-ready landscape table' make that usage context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server