Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WPS Office MCP

WPS Office MCP

by ZNaiGaomu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

wps_word_get_track_changes_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether track changes is enabled in the active Word document and retrieve the current number of revisions.

Instructions

获取当前文档的修订模式状态。

使用场景：

  • "看看修订模式开了没"

  • "当前文档有多少处修订"

  • "检查修订状态"

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_word_get_track_changes_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0-hardened.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context of 'current document' and example intents, but it does not disclose return shape, whether it reports a boolean or a count, or behavior when no document is open.

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 short and front-loaded: one main statement followed by three bulleted use cases. The third bullet ('检查修订状态') is somewhat redundant with the main statement, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but the absence of an output schema makes the missing return-type clarification more costly. The 'how many revisions' use case conflicts with the 'status' framing, so an agent cannot be certain what payload to expect.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: '获取当前文档的修订模式状态' (get current document's track changes status), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters. However, the usage scenario '当前文档有多少处修订' (how many revisions) introduces ambiguity about whether the tool returns a boolean status or a revision count.

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 gives concrete trigger phrases ('看看修订模式开了没', '检查修订状态') that tell an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but with zero parameters and no close sibling, the context is sufficient.

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