Extract DOCX file metadata such as author, title, and creation date to access essential document properties programmatically.
Get metadata
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.metadata_get"
}
}| 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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state that the document is not modified, nor does it mention any side effects, required document state, or output format. This is minimal and does not reveal meaningful behavior beyond the verb.
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 only two words. While concise, it is under-specified and does not constitute appropriate sizing. It fails to earn its place by not providing any additional useful information about the tool's scope or 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 any parameter details, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify what metadata is returned, how it is structured, or any usage notes. For a simple getter, it should at least mention what categories of metadata are accessible or reference the sibling set tool for context.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty properties). Per rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.
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?
'Get metadata' clearly indicates a retrieval operation, but 'metadata' is vague and could refer to multiple kinds. It distinguishes from siblings like get_text but lacks specificity about what metadata is included (e.g., title, author, custom properties). This is clearer than a tautology, but not as precise as examples like 'List ALL calls in date range'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., metadata_set, styles_get). The description provides no context about prerequisites or scenarios where this is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.