Converts academic proposal .docx files into clean Markdown, making content easy to read and process by LLMs or users. Extract full document structure without formatting clutter.
Mengekstraksi seluruh isi dokumen proposal .docx menjadi format Markdown bersih yang mudah dibaca dan diolah oleh LLM / pengguna.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Proposal Skripsi v1.0.docx |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the transformation from .docx to Markdown and the intended audience, but it does not state whether the tool returns the Markdown content, writes a file, or performs any side effects. Failure cases and output format details are also omitted.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter, though brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral details.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain how the Markdown is returned to the caller, which is essential for an agent to consume the result. It also does not disambiguate the tool from inspect_proposal_document, leaving an incomplete picture for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the filename parameter or how to provide it. The only semantic cues come from the parameter name and default value in the schema; the description adds no detail about path handling, file format expectations, or whether the filename is required.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it extracts the entire content of a .docx proposal document into clean Markdown. The purpose is distinct from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from closely related tools like inspect_proposal_document.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_proposal_document or generate_academic_proposal. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description; there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.