DOCX MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

docx.text_run_replace

Replace text in a specific run using paragraph, run, and text node indices for precise word-level editing in DOCX documents.

Instructions

Replace text in SPECIFIC run by coordinates (paragraph/run/textNode indices) - precise word-level editing

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>",
      "paragraphIndex": "<paragraphIndex>",
      "runIndex": "<runIndex>",
      "textNodeIndex": "<textNodeIndex>",
      "newText": "<newText>"
    },
    "name": "docx.text_run_replace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`docId`	Yes	Document ID
`newText`	Yes	New text to replace with
`runIndex`	Yes	Run index within paragraph (0-based)
`textNodeIndex`	Yes	Text node index within run (0-based)
`paragraphIndex`	Yes	Paragraph index (0-based)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Replace text' without mentioning side effects, persistence, or whether it modifies the document in place. It does not clarify what happens with the existing text or whether changes are saved.

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?

One concise sentence, no fluff, and the key differentiator (coordinates vs. text search) is front-loaded. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

With five parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify whether the entire run text is replaced or only part of it, and what happens on invalid indices. It only says 'replace text in specific run' which is ambiguous about scope. Lacks detail needed for correct 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters documented (docId, newText, runIndex, textNodeIndex, paragraphIndex). Descriptions are terse but accurate, adding minimal beyond the parameter names. Meets baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('text in specific run'), and clarifies it uses coordinates (paragraph/run/textNode indices). This clearly distinguishes it from more general tools like docx.replace_text.

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?

Mentions 'precise word-level editing' which implies a use case for fine-grained control, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like docx.replace_text or when not to use it. The context is implied but not explicit.

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