docbridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

docx_to_markdown

Idempotent

Convert DOCX documents to Markdown with pipe tables and strikethrough, then check output fidelity and flag content Markdown cannot carry.

Instructions

Markdown (CommonMark + pipe tables + strikethrough) from a DOCX, via sandboxed Pandoc. The report checks text, numbers, identifiers, links, headings, lists, tables and bold/italic, and lists what Markdown cannot carry (headers/footers, comments, equations, images). [docbridge schema 0.2.4]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	No	summary: report_summary + report_id (get_report has the rest). full: the whole report inline.	summary
`overwrite`	No
`input_path`	Yes	Absolute file path.
`output_path`	No
`report_path`	No
`max_differences`	No	Differences kept in the full report; the rest are counted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes
`error`	No
`report`	No	The full report. Over MCP only with detail='full'.
`outputs`	No
`report_id`	No	Pass to get_report for the full report (held for this server session).
`disclaimer`	No		docbridge never alters, summarizes or silently truncates source evidence. docbridge reports what it compared. PASS on an axis covers only that axis's stated scope; NOT_CHECKED and UNSUPPORTED are never passes. PDF text is the text layer as PyMuPDF decodes it, not the rendered glyphs. Nothing here interprets meaning: numbers are compared as characters, not as values.
`report_path`	No
`report_summary`	No
`schema_version`	Yes
`conversion_notes`	No
`operation_completed`	Yes	The operation ran and wrote its outputs. Says NOTHING about fidelity: read the report status.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.4Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the conversion runs via sandboxed Pandoc, and the report explicitly checks specific content categories and lists unsupported DOCX features.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the conversion direction and output format. The second sentence is dense but informative, though the trailing schema version tag is of limited value to an agent selecting the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema and annotations reduce the burden, and the description explains the report scope and sandboxing. However, for a 6-parameter tool with 50% schema description coverage, it still leaves important invocation details (overwrite, paths, report handling) unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters. It does not clarify overwrite, output_path, report_path, or how detail/max_differences affect the report beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact conversion direction and output dialect: Markdown (CommonMark + pipe tables + strikethrough) from a DOCX, via sandboxed Pandoc. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like markdown_to_docx and pdf_to_markdown without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description never says when to choose this tool over pdf_to_markdown, markdown_to_docx, or validate_conversion, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server