add_header_text
Add text to the header of a Microsoft Word document. Specify document ID, text, and optionally set primary header.
Instructions
Add text to the header
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| primary | No |
Add text to the header of a Microsoft Word document. Specify document ID, text, and optionally set primary header.
Add text to the header
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| primary | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing header content is replaced or appended, permissions required, or side effects like creating a header if absent.
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?
Extremely concise (one short sentence) but under-specified. Conciseness is valued but not at the cost of essential information.
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?
Given zero annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete for a tool that modifies a document. Missing critical usage context.
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?
Description does not explain any of the three parameters (doc_id, text, primary). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the action (add text) and the target (the header). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_footer_text' and 'add_watermark_text' by specifying 'header', but does not clarify which header (e.g., default, first page, etc.).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'insert_html_end' or 'insert_text_at_paragraph'. No exclusion criteria or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aspose-words/Aspose.Words-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server