DOCX MCP Server

by Mavline

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

docx.part_write

Write XML content directly to a specified part of a DOCX document by providing document ID, part path, and XML.

Instructions

Write a document part

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>",
      "partPath": "<partPath>",
      "xml": "<xml>"
    },
    "name": "docx.part_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`xml`	Yes	XML content
`docId`	Yes	Document ID
`partPath`	Yes	Part path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, or failure modes. It states only 'Write a document part' and gives no information about consequences, requirements, or error handling. The agent is left without any insight into what happens when the part is written.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on being uninformative. Still, for conciseness alone, it earns a high score as there is no verbosity to critique.

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?

The description is incomplete even given the lack of output schema and annotations. It does not explain the purpose of writing a part, the relationship to the document, potential effects on other parts, or any expected outcomes. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with a basic label ('XML content', 'Document ID', 'Part path'). The tool description adds nothing beyond these labels, so the baseline of 3 applies. The parameter meanings are minimally clear from the schema, but no additional context is provided.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description states a verb ('Write') and a resource ('document part') but is extremely vague. It does not specify what a 'document part' is, what writing entails, or how it differs from sibling tools like docx.part_read. The wording is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. No mention of typical scenarios or distinctions from related tools (e.g., docx.part_read, docx.metadata_get). The description provides no context for selection.

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