Set styles in DOCX documents to manage formatting for text, tables, and other elements through MCP.
Set 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_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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set styles' implies mutation but offers no information about side effects—whether changes persist through docx.save, whether it overwrites all existing styles, requires specific permissions, or affects currently open documents. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.
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?
Two words is under-specification, not genuine conciseness. The description is too terse to convey any useful information beyond what the tool name itself implies, and no front-loading of critical context exists because there is no additional content.
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 an empty parameter schemażadnych params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide virtually all context for the agent. A two-word phrase fails to explain what styles are accepted, the input format, return behavior, or side effects, making the tool effectively unknowable to an AI agent.
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 properties canvassed, so there are no parameters to document. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4 since there is nothing the description needs to explain on this dimension.
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 verb 'Set' plus resource 'styles' clearly indicates the action and target, and it pairs naturally with the sibling tool docx.styles_get for retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what styles are affected (character, paragraph, document defaults, numbering?) or what 'set' means operationally, leaving meaningful ambiguity.
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 usage context is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus other style-related tools like docx.styles_get or docx.numbering_set, nor any prerequisites such as whether the document must be open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.