docx-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_docx_accepted_text

Read DOCX paragraphs as they appear with all tracked changes accepted, removing tracked deletions without modifying the file. Returns text, paragraph index, change flags, and character counts.

Instructions

Read paragraphs from a DOCX as accepted text, with tracked deletions removed.

Returns a list of {para_index, text, has_tracked_change, char_count}. Pagination: start=0, limit=50 examines paragraphs 0 to 49. Set min_length=0 to include short and empty paragraphs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_docx_accepted_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`limit`	No
`start`	No
`min_length`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the load and does reasonably well: it discloses the tracked-change transformation (deletions removed), the returned record fields, and the pagination window semantics. It omits confirmation that the operation is purely read-only and says nothing about error behavior for a missing or malformed path, and the handling of tracked insertions is only implied by "accepted".

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?

Three short components in a clear order: purpose, return shape, then parameter notes. The pagination example earns its space because it disambiguates an off-by-one question; nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return description is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the parameter coverage addresses all three tunable inputs. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (missing file, tracked insertions, non-.docx input) which matter for a file-reading tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: the start/limit pair is explained with a concrete worked example (start=0, limit=50 covers paragraphs 0-49), and min_length's default filtering behavior is clarified with the set-to-0 escape hatch. Only path is left to obvious inference.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Read paragraphs from a DOCX") and adds a distinguishing semantic qualifier: text is returned as accepted, with tracked deletions removed. It does not, however, contrast itself with the close sibling list_docx_paragraph_range, so an agent must infer the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: read this when you want accepted text with deletions stripped out. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no naming of the sibling tools (list_docx_paragraph_range, get_docx_structure_stats) that an agent should compare against.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server