Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
document-mcp

document-mcp

by ExaDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List document fonts

fonts

List all font faces embedded in a document, including family, weight, style, and byte length. Works with DOCX, PPTX, ODT, ODP, ODS, and ODG formats.

Instructions

Lists every source-embedded font face a docx/pptx/odt/odp/ods/odg document carries (family, weight/style, byte length).

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "fonts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesThe docx/pptx/odt/odp/ods/odg document to extract source-embedded font faces from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.8
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "path": {
-        "description": "Filesystem path to the document to read. The document format is inferred from the file extension.",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "path"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "bytesBase64": {
-        "description": "Base64-encoded document bytes.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "format": {
-        "description": "The document format of bytesBase64 -- required, since inline bytes carry no filename to infer it from.",
-        "enum": [
-          "docx",
-          "pptx",
-          "xlsx",
-          "odt",
-          "odp",
-          "ods",
-          "odg",
-          "odf",
-          "markdown",
-          "pdf"
-        ],
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "bytesBase64",
-      "format"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "path": {
+        "description": "Filesystem path to the document to read. The document format is inferred from the file extension.",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "path"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "bytesBase64": {
+        "description": "Base64-encoded document bytes.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "format": {
+        "description": "The document format of bytesBase64 -- required, since inline bytes carry no filename to infer it from.",
+        "enum": [
+          "docx",
+          "pptx",
+          "xlsx",
+          "odt",
+          "odp",
+          "ods",
+          "odg",
+          "svg",
+          "odf",
+          "csv",
+          "markdown",
+          "pdf"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "bytesBase64",
+      "format"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  2. Addedv1.1.6

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing action and describes the output. However, it does not mention potential edge cases, error conditions, or performance implications, which are not critical for a simple listing tool.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured, directly stating the action and output.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides essential information about the expected return (font family, weight, byte length). It also lists supported formats. It is sufficient for understanding the tool's output, though it does not detail the exact structure (e.g., list vs. object) or error handling.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'source' parameter with its two possible forms (path or bytesBase64+format). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating the supported formats. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing every source-embedded font face in supported document formats, and specifies the returned attributes (family, weight, byte length). It is specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the alternatives (e.g., describe_font_file) or provide any conditional guidance. While the purpose is clear, it lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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