Set numbering formats for lists in DOCX documents, enabling custom ordered or unordered list definitions.
Set numbering
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.numbering_set"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses nothing about side effects, document mutation, persistence, errors, or return values. The agent is left without any behavioral context beyond the word 'set'.
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 this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It front-loads the only word available but omits the meaningful clarifying context that would make the tool usable.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter context, the two-word description is completely inadequate. Even for a simple zero-parameter tool, the agent needs to know what setting numbering means, what document state it affects, and whether it succeeds silently or returns something.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate on. The schema is effectively complete, and this is the intended baseline for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter detail, 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?
The description 'Set numbering' is essentially a word-for-word restatement of the tool name docx.numbering_set. It gives no detail about what kind of numbering is being set, what scope it applies to, or how it differs from siblings like numbering_get.
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. Sibling tools such as docx.numbering_get, docx.styles_set, and docx.sdt_put exist, but the description does not indicate when to choose numbering_set or what prerequisites/context are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.