DOCX MCP Server

by Mavline

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

docx.get_text

Extracts all text from a DOCX document, with options to include headers, footers, or both.

Instructions

Extract all text

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": {
      "docId": "<docId>"
    },
    "name": "docx.get_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`docId`	Yes	Document ID
`scope`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'Extract all text' reveals no behavioral traits beyond the action itself. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what format the extracted text takes, whether headers/footers are included by default, or any limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short—three words—but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads nothing useful and omits essential context that an agent would need.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return value, parameter semantics, scope behavior, prerequisites, or any edge cases, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: docId has only the minimal 'Document ID' description and scope has none. The description adds no parameter meaning—it doesn't explain what 'document' vs 'headers' vs 'footers' vs 'all' scopes mean or how to obtain a docId. Since the description fails to compensate for the partial schema coverage, this is a clear gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Extract all text'), but 'all text' is ambiguous—it doesn't clarify whether this means only the main document body or includes headers, footers, tables, etc. The scope parameter hints at this, but the description itself does not distinguish the tool from siblings like docx.get_table_content or docx.read_paragraph_range.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the document must be open), nor does it name any sibling tool that should be used instead for specific extraction needs.

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