List all XML parts (files) in a DOCX document to identify and inspect its internal structure.
List all parts (XML files) in a DOCX document
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.list_parts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docId | No | Document ID |
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 behavior. 'List' implies a read operation, but it does not state return format, whether the document is modified, or what happens when docId is omitted.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.
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 is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain the output shape or the behavior when docId is omitted. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether the tool meets its needs.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter docId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the optional nature of docId is not explained.
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?
Description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all parts (XML files) in a DOCX document'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docx.part_read, which reads a specific part, and docx.get_text, which extracts text.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docx.part_read or docx.tables_list. The intended context must be inferred from the description and sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.