Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ooxml-integrity

ooxml-integrity

by Dmitry-Kov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Check a .docx or .pptx

check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a .docx or .pptx for broken comment anchors, footnotes, styles, numbering, relationships, tracked changes, overflowing text, and off-slide shapes; returns a verdict and JSON report.

Instructions

Self-check one .docx or .pptx: comment anchors, footnotes, styles, numbering, relationships and tracked-change markup in a document; text that overflows its box and shapes off the slide in a deck. Same as ooxml-integrity check PATH --json --coverage. Without the original it cannot see what an edit removed, such as a deleted comment: use compare when the original is available. Returns a one-line verdict, then the JSON report; exit_code 1 means findings at or above fail-on.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYespath on this machine; absolute, or relative to the server's working directory. URLs are rejected

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds return shape ('a one-line verdict, then the JSON report') and exit code semantics. One wrinkle: 'findings at or above fail-on' references a threshold that is not exposed as a parameter in the schema, which could mislead an agent into hunting for a fail-on option.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the format-specific checks, then the limitation and alternative, then output semantics. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description properly explains the output (verdict line plus JSON) and the exit-code convention, and discloses the blind spot around removed content. The only incompleteness is the unexplained `fail-on` threshold, which is not representable in the input schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Single required `path` parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the rule that URLs are rejected, so the schema carries the load. The description only echoes the CLI form (`check PATH`), adding no new meaning about accepted path forms or formats beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Self-check') and resource (a .docx or .pptx), then enumerates exactly what is inspected in each format (comment anchors, footnotes, styles, numbering, relationships, tracked changes; overflow and off-slide shapes). The `compare` sibling is named and contrasted by condition, so an agent can separate the two tools without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use-this and when-to-use-the-alternative: 'Without the original it cannot see what an edit removed, such as a deleted comment: use compare when the original is available.' That both states a limitation and routes to the right tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools