Retrieves style definitions from a DOCX document, providing access to paragraph, character, and table styles for programmatic processing.
Get styles
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.styles_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 must disclose behavioral traits like side effects or return values. 'Get styles' implies a read-only operation but never explicitly states that it doesn't modify the document, doesn't require authorization, or what the exact output format is. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond the verb leaves the agent guessing.
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 brief (two words), which is concise and front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While no word is wasted, the lack of context makes it less useful than a slightly longer but more informative description.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description bears the full burden of explaining what the tool does and what to expect. 'Get styles' is insufficient—it doesn't indicate that styles are retrieved from the currently open document, doesn't describe the return format, and doesn't mention any related operations like styles_set. The description is incomplete for agents to use safely.
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, so the schema fully covers any parameter information (there is none). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to explain parameters it doesn't have.
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 'Get styles' clearly states the action (get) and resource (styles), which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'docx.styles_set' by implying a read operation. However, it doesn't clarify what 'styles' encompasses (e.g., paragraph, character, table styles) or how it differs from other getters like numbering_get, so it lacks full specificity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open document) or context where retrieving styles is appropriate. The description merely states the action without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.