word_selftestRuns every document operation on a .docx file and reports which ones the current machine supports, helping diagnose environment compatibility before layout or export tasks.
Try every operation on a document and report which ones this machine supports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| 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 burden. 'Try every operation' strongly implies the document may be modified or corrupted in the process, but the description never says so, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or whether the file is safe to reuse afterward.
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 tight sentence with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. Brevity works in its favor; the issue is omission, not verbosity.
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 needn't be explained, but for a tool that attempts every mutating operation against a user-supplied file with no annotations, the description omits the one thing an agent most needs: whether the target document will be altered and whether that is safe.
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%, and the description never mentions the single required `path` parameter — not even that it should point to a document that can withstand being modified by probing operations. The most safety-relevant constraint on the parameter is missing.
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 action: attempt all document operations and report which ones the machine supports. This is distinguishable from siblings like word_status (which presumably reports status rather than probing capability), though the description doesn't name that distinction explicitly or clarify what 'operations' encompasses.
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?
No guidance on when to use this instead of word_status or a specific operation tool, no prerequisites, and no indication of whether it should be run against a disposable document. The agent is left to infer invocation context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.