Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DOCX MCP Server

DOCX MCP Server

by Mavline
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

docx.list_parts

Lists the parts within a DOCX document using its document ID. Retrieve a list of the underlying OOXML parts for inspection.

Instructions

List document parts

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.list_parts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docIdYesDocument ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', implying a read operation, but does not explain what information is returned, whether the document must be open, or whether this includes relationship parts, content types, or only main document parts.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks any structural elements like examples or expected output, so it does not fully earn its place as a useful definition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'parts' means and what the tool returns. An agent would have to infer behavior from sibling tool names like part_read and part_write, which is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes docId as 'Document ID'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('List document parts'), so it is not a pure tautology, but 'parts' is left undefined and could mean internal OPC package parts, sections, or other components. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like part_read or part_write.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as docx.part_read, docx.part_write, or docx.metadata_get, nor does it state any prerequisites like the document needing to be open.

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