DOCX MCP Server

by Mavline

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

docx.table_edit

Edit table cells in a DOCX document by specifying the table's XPath and applying an operation to modify its content.

Instructions

Edit table content

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>",
      "tableXPath": "<tableXPath>",
      "op": "<op>"
    },
    "name": "docx.table_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`op`	Yes	Operation
`docId`	Yes	Document ID
`tableXPath`	Yes	Table XPath

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'edit table content', implying a mutation but not explaining effects like persistence, undo, or what the `op` does. No information about side effects or requirements beyond the implicit mutating nature of 'edit'.

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, but for a tool with a nested `op` object, this is under-specification, not conciseness. Important behavioral details are missing, so the brevity is a negative.

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?

Given the complexity of this tool (nested op schema, no output schema, 3 required params), the description is grossly inadequate. It leaves agents clueless about what operations are supported, what arguments op might contain, or what the tool returns. There are no instructions on how to properly invoke it.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are extremely minimal ('Operation', 'Document ID', 'Table XPath'). The `op` property, which is the core of this tool, has no structure or allowed values described, and 'Operation' is tautological. The description adds no insight into how to construct a valid operation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a clear verb ('edit') and resource ('table content'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_table_content' and 'remove_table_row', though it doesn't explicitly call out those distinctions.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many table-related siblings (e.g., get_table_content, remove_table_row, find_empty_table_rows). The description is just the function's name restated.

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