Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Word AI

Word AI

by flyfish-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

docx_list_notes

List footnotes and endnotes from a Word document for content inspection.

Instructions

Read-only. Inspect footnotes/endnotes when present.

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": "docx_list_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docx_pathYes
max_previewNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.6

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only declares read-only behavior. With no annotations, it fails to disclose what happens when no footnotes/endnotes exist, performance implications, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short with no wasted words, but it is under-specified, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It meets a minimal standard but is not optimally informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the large set of sibling tools and no output schema, the description is too vague. It does not explain the return format, whether it lists or counts notes, or the effect of max_preview. Substantial gaps exist.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter (docx_path or max_preview). The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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 clearly states the tool inspects footnotes/endnotes and is read-only, specifying a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate it from similar sibling tools like docx_list_parts or docx_inspect.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'when present' implies conditional usage but lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools