Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WPS Office MCP

WPS Office MCP

by ZNaiGaomu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

wps_common_get_app_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve WPS Office version, build details, open documents, and platform information to check application status and identify the current environment.

Instructions

获取WPS应用的基本信息。

使用场景：

  • "WPS是什么版本"

  • "查看WPS信息"

  • "获取应用状态"

特点：

  • 返回WPS版本号、构建信息

  • 返回当前打开的文档信息

  • 返回运行平台信息

Tool call template

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": "wps_common_get_app_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0-hardened.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (version, build, open documents, platform), which is especially important since there is no output schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with a main statement, usage scenarios, and feature bullets. It is concise, front-loaded, and every line adds relevant information without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No critical information is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves basic WPS application information and enumerates specific return contents: version/build info, currently open documents, and platform info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connectivity checks or document-specific getters, so an agent can identify it without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides concrete usage scenarios such as 'WPS是什么版本' and '获取应用状态', giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the scenarios are specific enough to guide selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools