Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Word AI

Word AI

by flyfish-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

docx_table_to_csv

Export tables from Word DOCX files to CSV. Specify the document path and table index; output file is named automatically unless an out_path is provided.

Instructions

Write-sidecar only. Export table to CSV using default naming when out_path is omitted.

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>",
      "table_index": "<table_index>"
    },
    "name": "docx_table_to_csv"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
out_pathNo
docx_pathYes
scope_tagNo
table_indexYes

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions default naming and sidecar-only context, but fails to describe other key traits like file creation permissions, output location, or whether the operation is destructive.

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?

The description is extremely brief with two sentences and no extraneous wording. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover essential details like the role of table_index, docx_path, or scope_tag. The agent would likely be underinformed.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description only hints at the out_path parameter ('default naming when out_path is omitted'), but provides no information about docx_path, table_index, or scope_tag.

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 states the tool exports a table to CSV, and mentions behavior when out_path is omitted. This clearly identifies the verb and resource, though it does not distinguish from the sibling docx_export_table_csv beyond the 'Write-sidecar only' note.

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?

Only a vague constraint 'Write-sidecar only' is given. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docx_export_table_csv or docx_read_table.

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