Build HWPX and PDF files from a styled template and Markdown/JSON content, including automatic layout checks and formatting corrections.
서식 + 내용으로 HWPX 와 PDF 를 만든다(조판 자동 점검·보정, 서식 재현 점검 포함). content 는 Markdown(확장)/JSON 문자열 또는 그 파일 경로.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 파일 이름(생략하면 제목) | |
| engine | No | hancom|libreoffice|html (생략 시 자동) | |
| content | Yes | Markdown(확장) 또는 JSON 문자열, 혹은 그 내용이 담긴 파일 경로 | |
| output_dir | Yes | 결과를 저장할 폴더 | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: automatic layout inspection/correction and template-reproduction checking, plus dual HWPX/PDF output. However it omits failure behavior, overwrite semantics, permission requirements, and what the tool returns, which matters for an unannotated build tool.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output formats before the parenthetical detail and the content-format note. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 5-parameter, 3-required build tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the auto-check behavior but leaves gaps: it never says what is returned (e.g., output file paths) nor how the required template_path/content/output_dir interact or fail.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description restates the content parameter's accepted forms (Markdown/JSON string or file path) but adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 names a specific verb (만든다/makes) and its resources (HWPX and PDF) plus the inputs it composes them from (template + content), so an agent can distinguish it from read/convert/analyze siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as hwpx_convert_hwp or hwpx_preview. The generation purpose is implied, but nothing tells the agent under what conditions this tool should be preferred over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.