Skip to main content
Glama

insert_text

Insert text into a paragraph with optional tracked changes markup. Specify position by start, end, or substring, and use context for precise anchoring.

Instructions

Insert text into a paragraph.

By default (tracked=True) the insertion is marked as a proposed addition that appears underlined in Word's Track Changes view. The human reviewer must accept it in Word before it becomes permanent. Pass tracked=False to write the text directly with no revision markup.

Args: para_id: paraId of the target paragraph. text: Text to insert. position: Where to insert — "start", "end", or a substring to insert after. author: Author name shown in Word's review pane (tracked=True only). context_before: Text immediately before the insertion point (for precise anchoring). context_after: Text immediately after the insertion point (for precise anchoring). ignore_case: If True, match context_before/context_after case-insensitively. tracked: True (default) = revision markup the human accepts/rejects in Word. False = text written directly, no markup. document_handle: Optional handle for concurrent session isolation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
para_idYes
textYes
positionNoend
authorNoClaude
context_beforeNo
context_afterNo
ignore_caseNo
trackedNo
document_handleNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: default tracked=True creates revision markup, tracked=False writes directly. It also explains context anchoring parameters and author visibility. Lacks details on error handling or side effects of invalid parameters, but covers core behavior well.

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 moderately long but well-organized: a one-line summary, followed by tracked behavior explanation, then a parameter list. Each part serves a purpose, though some redundancy (e.g., tracked explanation repeated in parameters) could be trimmed.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the input schema richness, the description covers key behavioral aspects and parameter details thoroughly. It does not explain return values or error handling, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides thorough explanations for all 9 parameters, including use cases for context_before/context_after and ignore_case, adding significant value beyond the schema's property definitions.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Insert text into a paragraph', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from deletion or replacement tools implicitly, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_text' or 'replace_text'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains when to use tracked=False versus tracked=True, providing context on revision tracking. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving some guidance gaps.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SecurityRonin/docx-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server