adeu

accept_all_changes

Destructive

Accepts all tracked changes and removes comments in one operation to produce a finalized clean document. Use when a document review is fully complete.

Instructions

Accepts all tracked changes and removes all comments in a single operation, producing a finalized clean document. Use this when a document review is entirely complete and you want to clear all redlines. For selective acceptance/rejection of specific changes, use process_document_batch instead.

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": {
      "docx_path": "<docx_path>"
    },
    "name": "accept_all_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`docx_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the DOCX file.
`output_path`	No	Optional output path.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.5May 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and description adds that it removes comments and finalizes the document. This aligns well, though it could explicitly mention irreversibility. Still, combined with annotations, the behavior is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two efficient sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first explaining the operation, second providing usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the operation, its outcome, and usage context. No information gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters. Description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it accepts all tracked changes and removes comments to produce a finalized document. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes itself from process_document_batch by emphasizing single operation vs. selective processing.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use (when review is entirely complete) and when-not-to-use (for selective changes), with direct mention of alternative sibling tool process_document_batch.

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

Deploy Server