Edit tables in DOCX/OOXML files programmatically to update structure, cell values, and formatting within the document.
Edit table
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.table_edit"
}
}| 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 behavioral disclosure. 'Edit table' implies mutation but does not explain side effects, whether saving is required afterward, what table is targeted, or whether changes are reversible.
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 deliberate conciseness. A minimal phrase like 'Edit table' does not earn its place because it conveys no actionable information and wastes the opportunity to help an agent.
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, no parameters, and a two-word description, this tool is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke it safely. Table editing is inherently complex, and the description provides zero context about capabilities, limitations, or expected behavior.
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 0 parameters, so there is no parameter schema for the description to enhance. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4; however, the description still fails to explain how the target table is identified, which would add implicit parameter-like context.
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 'Edit table' is a tautology of the tool name docx.table_edit. It gives no detail on whether the tool edits cell content, row/column structure, formatting, or something else, and it does not differentiate from siblings like docx.tables_list or docx.replace_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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool, what prerequisite state is required (e.g., an open document or selected table), or how it compares to sibling tools. The description is entirely silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.