Extract a list of all comments from a DOCX file. Access comment details to review or process them programmatically.
List comments
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "docx.comments_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'List comments' is minimal and does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires a document to be open, or what format the comments take. It is not misleading, but it offers almost no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but in this case, it may be overly terse. It fits a standard pattern but fails to add any value beyond the tool name. It is not verbose, but it also doesn't use the available space to clarify behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description should compensate but does not. The tool is part of a broader family of DOCX manipulation tools, and this description is too thin for an agent to understand what 'list comments' returns or requires, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters to describe, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics because there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the tool takes no inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List comments' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool lists comments. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool docx.comments_delete, and the scope of 'comments' is ambiguous (e.g., all comments in the document, comments by an author, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 or when it is not appropriate. The tool has no parameters and no annotations, so the description is the only source of usage context, but it provides none.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.