Create a new .docx file or append headings and paragraphs to an existing Word document, letting you build and extend documents programmatically.
Membuat file .docx baru atau menambahkan paragraf ke file yang sudah ada
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| heading | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| paragraphs | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it largely restates the tool name. It implies append-to-existing preserves content, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, permissions, existing-content handling, or return format.
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, efficient sentence with the create-vs-append distinction front-loaded. No wasted words, though it's arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too many invocation-critical details (heading usage, overwrite semantics) unspecified.
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 0% for 3 parameters. The description only vaguely references a 'file' and 'paragraphs', omitting the 'heading' parameter entirely and adding no format or syntax detail to compensate.
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 states a specific verb+resource: creating a new .docx or appending paragraphs to an existing one. It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like add_styled_paragraph_docx or format_paragraph_docx.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling docx tools. The create-vs-append condition is implied, but no exclusions or alternative routing is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.