Add an image to a DOCX file using MCP server to enable automated document editing.
Add image
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.image_add"
}
}| 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Add image' which implies mutation but does not mention whether it requires a valid document, how the image is provided (no parameters), or if any state changes are permanent. No behavioral details beyond the basic action.
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 a single, direct phrase with no fluff. It is maximal in conciseness, though perhaps under-specified. But for conciseness, it scores high.
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?
The tool involves adding an image to a document, which likely requires specifying the image source, insertion point, size, etc. Yet the schema is empty and the description gives no operational details. There is no output schema to clarify return values. Given the complexity of document manipulation and lack of parameters, the description is far from complete; it fails to mention prerequisites or outcomes.
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?
The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. Schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, but this also means the tool likely expects some implicit input (e.g., via context) that is not explained. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description does not enhance understanding of how the tool receives necessary data, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 'Add image' clearly indicates a verb (add) and resource (image), but provides no detail on scope or specifics (e.g., source, target location, format). It is distinct from sibling tools like list or update position, but the purpose is vague beyond the basic action.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., must have a document open), or circumstances where it might be inappropriate. The description simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.