word_outlineLists each top-level section’s start page and length in a Word document, with optional text markers to define sections instead of heading levels.
Give the start page and length of each top-level part of the document.
Pass markers to define the parts by text instead of by heading level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| markers | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fidelity | Yes | ||
| sections | Yes | ||
| total_pages | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does not say whether the tool is read-only, what happens when 'path' is omitted, or whether it targets the currently open document. It only discloses the shape of the result (parts with a start page and a length).
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?
Two short sentences, the result is stated first and the alternative mode second. Nothing is padded, though 'Give' is a weak verb for a retrieval operation.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description sensibly covers the markers mode. Still missing are the semantics of a null 'path' (current document?) and whether supplying markers overrides or supplements heading-level detection.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain what 'markers' means (matching text that delimits parts, as an alternative to heading levels), which is genuinely useful, but the 'path' parameter is never mentioned and no example marker string format is given.
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?
The description states the concrete output: the start page and length of each top-level part of a document. That is specific enough to distinguish it from word_page_count and word_page_text, though the relationship to the sibling word_headings is never made explicit.
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?
The second sentence implies an alternative mode ('Pass markers... instead of by heading level'), which gives the agent some guidance on choosing a mode. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over word_headings or word_find_page, and no prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.