word_page_countCount the pages of a .docx document as Microsoft Word or LibreOffice lays it out, so you can verify pagination and page totals before export or printing.
Count the pages of a document as the word processor lays it out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'As the word processor lays it out' usefully implies layout-dependent counting rather than stored page breaks, but the description omits whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an open document, whether it recalculates layout, and what happens if the document is not open. Return values are covered by the output schema, but the operational behavior is thin.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the core purpose, though it is arguably too terse given the missing behavioral and parameter context.
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?
The output schema covers the return value, so the description need not explain it. However, for a tool with an undocumented optional path and no annotations, the description should clarify document targeting and whether an open document is required. Those gaps leave an agent unsure how to invoke it correctly in edge cases.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single optional 'path' parameter. The description mentions 'a document' but does not explain what 'path' means, what happens when it is null (presumably the active document), or whether it accepts only open documents. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 and resource: 'Count the pages of a document.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like word_find_page or word_page_text, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.
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 description says nothing about when to use this tool versus word_find_page, word_page_text, or word_status. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the document must be open or whether the layout must be current. Usage must be inferred entirely by the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.