Analyze HWPX template formatting to extract document structure, tables, and styles, then return skeleton Markdown for recreating that layout in new documents.
HWPX 서식을 분석해 문서 구조(표지·소제목·표·박스·글머리·서식 종류)와, 그 서식을 그대로 다시 만드는 뼈대 Markdown 을 돌려준다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_path | Yes | 서식 HWPX 파일 경로 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output shape (structure list + reusable skeleton Markdown), which is more than a bare 'analyze' would give, but it never states that the operation is read-only / non-mutating and mentions no auth, size, or failure behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumerated outputs are packed efficiently. The parenthetical list is dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back.
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?
For a single-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only analysis tool, the description covers the essential return content (structure and skeleton Markdown), which compensates for the absent output schema. Missing only the safety/read-only assurance and sibling disambiguation.
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?
With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents template_path fully, and the description adds no format, extension, or path-resolution detail beyond it. This matches the baseline for schema-driven params.
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?
Names a specific verb (분석) and resource (HWPX 서식), and enumerates what it extracts (표지·소제목·표·박스·글머리·서식 종류) plus the skeleton Markdown it emits. However, it does not differentiate itself from near-neighbors like hwpx_read or hwpx_preview, so an agent must still infer which one to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. must the file be a .hwpx template rather than converted .hwp), and no mention of the sibling tools that overlap with this one. The agent gets a purpose but no routing signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.