Office Word MCP Server

by franlealp1

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap that could cause confusion. For example, 'add_paragraph' and 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' both handle paragraph insertion, and 'find_text_in_document' and 'search_and_replace' both involve text searching. The descriptions help clarify differences, but an agent might misselect between similar tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern, such as 'add_paragraph', 'format_text', and 'create_document'. However, there are minor deviations like 'list_available_documents' (which fits) and 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' (which is verbose but follows the pattern). No chaotic mixing of styles is present.
Tool Count2/5
With 32 tools, this server feels overly heavy for a Word document manipulation scope. While Word has many features, the tool set includes numerous specialized operations that could be consolidated or omitted, leading to potential complexity and confusion for agents. A more streamlined set of 15-20 tools would be more appropriate.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is highly complete for Word document operations, covering creation, editing, formatting, conversion, protection, and metadata handling. It includes CRUD-like actions for paragraphs, tables, and styles, as well as advanced features like footnotes, headers, and XML access. No obvious gaps are present for the domain.
Average 2.9/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Add') but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, effects on document structure, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 complexity of a document mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'endnote_text', 'filename', and 'paragraph_index' implicitly but does not explain their semantics, such as format requirements or index interpretation. It adds minimal value beyond naming the parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 action ('Add an endnote') and the target ('to a specific paragraph in a Word document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_footnote_to_document' by specifying 'endnote' instead of 'footnote'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other document-modifying tools beyond the type of annotation, making it slightly less specific than a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'add_footnote_to_document' or other document editing tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, document state, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Add a paragraph' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires document write permissions, whether it modifies the original file or creates a copy, what happens if the file doesn't exist, or how errors are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant behavioral information gap.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and multiple sibling tools offering similar functionality, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, behavioral constraints, or how it differs from other paragraph insertion tools in the server.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (filename, style, text), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies 'text' is the paragraph content but doesn't explain 'style' parameter usage or format, whether 'filename' must include path/extension, or default behaviors. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 action ('Add') and target resource ('paragraph to a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_heading' or 'add_table' by specifying paragraph addition. However, it doesn't specify whether this adds to the end or at a specific position, leaving some ambiguity compared to more precise alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' and 'replace_paragraph_block_below_header' that might offer more precise paragraph insertion, there's no indication of when this simpler 'add_paragraph' is preferred. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to other paragraph-related tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds an image but does not describe how it behaves: whether it modifies an existing document or creates a new one, what happens if the image path is invalid, if there are size limits, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain key aspects like behavioral traits, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 by explaining parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify what 'filename' refers to (e.g., the Word document name), what format 'image_path' expects, or how 'width' affects the image. With 3 parameters and low coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 action ('Add') and target resource ('an image to a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., add_paragraph, add_table), which all modify Word documents in various ways, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing document), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like add_paragraph or add_table, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't describe what happens—e.g., whether it modifies the document in-place, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste—it states the core action and resource without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with essential information, making it highly efficient.
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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, nor does it clarify parameter meanings. For a tool that modifies documents, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions adding a table but doesn't explain what 'filename', 'rows', 'cols', or 'data' mean in context—e.g., 'filename' likely refers to the target document, 'rows' and 'cols' define table dimensions, and 'data' might populate cells. Without this, parameter understanding is incomplete.
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 action ('Add') and resource ('table to a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_paragraph' or 'add_picture' by specifying the type of content being added. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from 'format_table' or 'modify_table_cell', which keeps it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for modifying existing tables), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'format_table' for existing tables. This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if a style with the same name exists, if changes are reversible, or how the style integrates with the document. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.
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 complexity of an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. The conciseness comes at the cost of insufficient detail for this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema only lists parameter names and types without explanations. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what parameters like 'base_style', 'color', or 'filename' represent, their formats, or how they interact. This leaves parameters largely undocumented, falling short of the baseline needed for low schema coverage.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('a custom style in the document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'format_text' or 'customize_footnote_style' by focusing on style creation rather than modification or specific footnote styling. However, it doesn't specify what type of document or style system is involved, which slightly limits specificity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing document), compare to similar tools like 'customize_footnote_style' or 'format_text', or indicate scenarios where creating a custom style is preferred over direct formatting. Usage is implied only by the tool name and action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('Customize') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or how it interacts with existing footnote content. No rate limits, error conditions, or output expectations are mentioned.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse while avoiding redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, error handling, and output, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly in context with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'numbering_format' entails (e.g., examples beyond the default), how 'font_name' interacts with document styles, or the scope of changes (e.g., all footnotes vs. selective).
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 action ('Customize') and target ('footnote numbering and formatting in a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_footnote_to_document' by focusing on styling rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing document with footnotes), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_custom_style' that might handle similar formatting tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, effects on document structure, error conditions, or any rate limits, which are essential for a destructive operation.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and resource efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address safety, outcomes, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., path, identifier) or how 'paragraph_index' is defined (e.g., zero-based, inclusive of headers), leaving parameters semantically ambiguous despite two required parameters.
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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('a paragraph from a document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_table' or 'replace_paragraph_block_below_header', which would require more specificity about scope or method to achieve a perfect score.
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 such as 'delete_table', 'replace_paragraph_block_below_header', or other editing tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, document states, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but does not clarify permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling (e.g., if the table doesn't exist), or side effects. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from additional context.
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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'filename' or 'table_index' at all, leaving both parameters undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what a 'table_index' represents or how to specify the filename.
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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a table from a document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_paragraph' by specifying the target resource as a table, but does not explicitly contrast with other deletion tools or explain why to choose this over alternatives like 'format_table' for modification.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing table), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting other elements), or sibling tools like 'delete_paragraph' for different operations. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't cover aspects like whether the tool modifies the document, requires specific permissions, returns structured data (e.g., positions or counts), or handles errors, which are critical for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or structural fluff, making it highly efficient for quick comprehension.
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 complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and parameter usage, which are essential for effective tool invocation in this context with rich sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter-specific information. It doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., path or name), clarify the scope of 'text_to_find', or provide context for 'match_case' and 'whole_word' beyond their names, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
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 verb ('Find') and resource ('occurrences of specific text in a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_and_replace' or 'get_document_text', which could perform similar text-related operations, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when-not scenarios (e.g., for replacing text or extracting all text) or name specific sibling tools like 'search_and_replace' for comparison, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Format' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing formatting, or the response format. It mentions 'borders, shading, and structure' but lacks details on how these are applied or any constraints (e.g., rate limits, side effects).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Format a table') and lists key features ('borders, shading, and structure') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly. It's inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and potential side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'borders, shading, and structure', which loosely maps to 'border_style' and 'shading', but doesn't explain the other parameters ('filename', 'table_index', 'has_header_row') or provide any syntax, format, or usage details. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.
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 action ('Format') and the resource ('a table') with specific formatting aspects ('borders, shading, and structure'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_table' or 'modify_table_cell' by focusing on visual formatting rather than creation or content modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential formatting in 'format_text', which might handle text-level formatting.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing table), exclusions (e.g., not for text formatting), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'modify_table_cell' or 'format_text'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets information', implying a read-only operation, but fails to specify what type of information (e.g., metadata, properties), whether it requires file access permissions, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without redundancy, earning full marks for brevity and clarity in structure.
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 lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is returned, how errors are handled, or provide enough detail for effective use in a context with many sibling tools, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'filename' undocumented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the expected format of the filename (e.g., path, extension requirements) or constraints. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter poorly defined.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a Word document'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_outline' or 'get_document_text', which also retrieve document-related information, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_document_outline' or 'get_document_text'. It lacks context about what specific information is retrieved (e.g., metadata vs. content) or any prerequisites, making it unclear in what scenarios this tool is preferred over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads text but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, what happens with invalid inputs (e.g., out-of-range paragraph indices), error handling, or output format (e.g., plain text vs. structured data). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool with parameters.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address parameter semantics, behavioral expectations like error handling, or output details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in a document processing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a specific paragraph' and 'Word document', hinting at 'paragraph_index' and 'filename', but provides no details on paragraph indexing (0-based vs. 1-based), filename requirements (path, extension), or supported document formats. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic structure.
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 action ('Get text') and target resource ('from a specific paragraph in a Word document'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_document_text' (which retrieves all text) and 'find_text_in_document' (which searches content). However, it doesn't specify if it retrieves plain text or formatted text, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_document_text' for full document extraction or 'find_text_in_document' for content-based searches, nor does it specify prerequisites such as document accessibility or paragraph indexing conventions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add password protection') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe what happens to the original document (e.g., overwritten vs. new copy), whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or error conditions. For a security-related mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.
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 a mutation tool with security implications, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about behavior, parameters, outcomes, and error handling that an agent needs to use this tool effectively and safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (path, name in storage, etc.), format requirements for the password, or constraints on either parameter. With 2 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide needed semantic context.
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 action ('Add password protection') and target resource ('to a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unprotect_document' by specifying the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other document modification tools like 'format_text' or 'convert_to_pdf' beyond the specific protection function.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), when not to use it (e.g., if document is already protected), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'unprotect_document' for removing protection. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions avoiding TOC modification (a useful constraint) but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this is a destructive mutation, what happens to the replaced content, error handling, permissions needed, or output format. For a 4-parameter mutation tool, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Spanish that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: it specifies the action, target, and a key constraint without redundancy or fluff.
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 a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, error conditions, and output expectations. The TOC constraint is helpful but insufficient for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'detect_block_end_fn' does, how 'header_text' is matched, what 'new_paragraphs' should contain, or file format expectations for 'filename'. The description fails to provide meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 action ('Reemplaza' - replaces) and the target ('bloque de párrafos debajo de un encabezado' - paragraph block below a header), with a specific constraint ('evitando modificar TOC' - avoiding modifying TOC). It distinguishes from siblings like 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' by focusing on header-based replacement, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.
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?
The description provides minimal guidance: it implies usage when needing to replace paragraphs under a header without affecting the TOC. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use advice, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives like 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' or 'delete_paragraph' + 'add_paragraph' combinations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool replaces 'all occurrences,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it modifies files in-place, requires write permissions, handles errors (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or has side effects like backups. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise: 'Search for text and replace all occurrences.' It's a single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity (a mutation tool with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, error handling, or return values, nor does it clarify parameter usage. For a tool that modifies documents, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (filename, find_text, replace_text) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't add any meaning beyond the parameter names—it doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., path, document name), how text matching works (case-sensitive?), or the scope of replacement. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters poorly documented.
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's purpose: 'Search for text and replace all occurrences.' This specifies the verb (search and replace) and resource (text), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_text_in_document' or 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors', which appear to have overlapping functionality. The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'find_text_in_document' (which likely only searches) and 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' (which may replace specific blocks), there's no indication of when this global replace tool is preferred. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a write operation ('Add'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid paragraph index), or side effects (e.g., document modification). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted information.
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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies parameters for filename, footnote text, and paragraph index, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema titles suggest (e.g., no details on filename format, paragraph index starting point, or footnote text constraints). The baseline is 3 due to adequate but minimal parameter context.
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 action ('Add a footnote') and target resource ('to a specific paragraph in a Word document'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_endnote_to_document' or 'customize_footnote_style', which would be needed for a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot add footnotes to tables), or comparisons with siblings like 'add_endnote_to_document' or 'customize_footnote_style'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a heading' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify where the heading is added (e.g., at end, at cursor position), whether it modifies an existing document or creates a new one, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information efficiently.
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?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, error conditions, or what constitutes success. Given the complexity of document editing and multiple sibling tools, more context is needed for reliable agent operation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only parameter names and types without explanations. The description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond what's inferred from parameter names (e.g., 'filename' for document, 'text' for heading content, 'level' possibly for heading hierarchy). This meets the baseline for minimal parameter information when schema coverage is low.
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 action ('Add a heading') and target resource ('to a Word document'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_header_near_text' that also add content to documents, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for document modification (e.g., add_paragraph, add_table, insert_header_near_text), there's no indication of when a heading is appropriate versus other content types or positioning methods, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It does not disclose if this requires write permissions, affects document layout irreversibly, or has side effects like pagination changes. More context on mutation behavior is needed for a tool that modifies documents.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on how the page break is added (e.g., at cursor position, end of document), what the tool returns, or error conditions, which are crucial for a mutation tool in a document editing context.
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?
The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage for the single parameter 'filename'. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description fails to explain what 'filename' represents (e.g., path, identifier) or format expectations, leaving a gap in understanding.
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 action ('Add') and target ('page break to the document'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_paragraph' or 'add_heading' in terms of document structure, which prevents a perfect score.
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 like 'add_paragraph' for text insertion or 'add_heading' for section breaks. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing document, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but doesn't describe traits like whether it overwrites files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool (conversion implies change) with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Convert a Word document to PDF format'). There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or output details, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's correct invocation. More context is needed for adequate completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'Word document' and 'PDF format', which hints at the 'filename' parameter for input and 'output_filename' for output, but doesn't explain parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, compensating slightly for the coverage gap but not fully.
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's purpose: converting a Word document to PDF format. It uses specific verbs ('Convert') and identifies the resource ('Word document'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'copy_document' or 'create_document', which might also involve document format changes, though those are not direct PDF conversions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Word document), exclusions (e.g., not for other file types), or comparisons to siblings like 'copy_document' for format preservation. Usage is implied from the purpose but lacks explicit context or decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a copy, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, output, and how it integrates with other document tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies parameters for source and destination but does not explain their semantics, such as filename formats, path requirements, or default behaviors. Since there are 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3, as the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.
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 action ('Create a copy') and resource ('Word document'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'create_document' or 'convert_to_pdf', which also involve document operations, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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. For example, it does not specify if this is for duplicating existing documents versus creating new ones from scratch, or how it differs from 'create_document' or other document manipulation tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether the document is saved automatically, format limitations, or error conditions. 'Create' implies a write operation, but details are missing.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a tool that creates documents with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what happens after creation, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The description mentions 'optional metadata', which hints at parameters like author and title, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names, so baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('new Word document'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'copy_document' by specifying creation rather than duplication, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_document' or 'list_available_documents'. It mentions optional metadata but doesn't explain prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs formatting (a mutation operation) but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects on document structure, or error handling. The color format note is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing a key parameter constraint. It's front-loaded with the core function, and the IMPORTANT note is justified as it prevents a common formatting error. No extraneous information is included.
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 complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, most parameter meanings, return values, and usage context. While the color format note is valuable, it doesn't compensate for the overall gaps in a tool that modifies document content.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds critical semantic guidance for the 'color' parameter (hex code format without '#'), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't explain the other 9 parameters (e.g., what 'paragraph_index' refers to, how positions are measured), leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.
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's purpose: 'Format a specific range of text within a paragraph.' This specifies the verb ('Format'), resource ('range of text'), and scope ('within a paragraph'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'format_table' or 'create_custom_style', which also handle formatting in different contexts.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'format_table' for table formatting or 'create_custom_style' for reusable styles, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing document or paragraph. The only usage note is about color format, which is parameter-specific rather than contextual.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'structure' includes (e.g., headings, sections, tables), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any permissions or limitations. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 lack of annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'structure' means in practice, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.
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?
The description adds no parameter information beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'filename'. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the parameter's meaning and format unspecified. The baseline is adjusted due to the coverage gap.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'structure of a Word document', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_document_info' or 'get_document_text', which also retrieve document information but focus on different aspects.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_document_info' and 'get_document_text', there's no indication of what 'structure' entails or how it differs from other document retrieval tools, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'extract all text' but does not cover critical aspects like permissions needed, file format support, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs document processing.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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 complexity of document text extraction, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and output expectations, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with only one parameter 'filename' documented structurally. The description does not add any semantic details about the parameter, such as expected file paths or formats. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'text from a Word document', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paragraph_text_from_document' or 'find_text_in_document', which limits the score to 4 instead of 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_paragraph_text_from_document' for partial extraction or 'find_text_in_document' for searching. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions style matching and positional insertion, but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether this modifies the original document permanently, what permissions are required, error handling for invalid targets, or what happens if multiple paragraphs match the target text. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first states the core functionality, second lists parameters. No wasted words, though it could be more front-loaded by emphasizing the primary action before parameter details. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a document mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, style matching mechanics, or how conflicts between target_text and target_paragraph_index are resolved. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool reliably.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations, providing essential semantics like 'before or after' for position and 'optional' flags. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., target_text vs target_paragraph_index), format requirements, or constraints beyond what's obvious from parameter names.
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's purpose: 'Insert a new line or paragraph (with specified or matched style) before or after the target paragraph.' It specifies the verb (insert), resource (line/paragraph), and scope (near target text). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_header_near_text' beyond mentioning style matching.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is preferred over 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_header_near_text', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions style adherence but lacks details on permissions, whether modifications are destructive/reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid cell coordinates), or output expectations. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from constraints, and some words like 'specific' are redundant given the parameter names.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: behavioral traits (e.g., side effects), parameter meanings, error cases, and output format. The style constraint is helpful but insufficient for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter-specific information. It implies parameters for targeting (table, row, column) and content, but doesn't explain semantics like coordinate systems, content formatting, or filename requirements. Baseline 3 is not met due to lack of compensation for poor schema coverage.
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 action ('Modify or add content') and target ('specific table cell'), with the qualifier 'following the style of existing non-header cells' adding specificity. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'add_table' or 'delete_table', though not explicitly compared to similar tools like 'format_table'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for table cell editing but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot modify header cells), or compare to siblings like 'format_table' for style changes versus content updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a mutation ('Remove password protection'), but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or what happens to the document after processing. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial behavioral context, parameter guidance, and output expectations that would help an agent use it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only 2 parameters and their names being self-explanatory ('filename', 'password'), the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't add value but the minimal parameter count reduces impact.
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 action ('Remove password protection') and resource ('from a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'protect_document', but the verb 'remove' versus 'protect' provides implicit differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. It doesn't mention the sibling 'protect_document' tool or any other related operations, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation operation ('replace') but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or potential side effects (e.g., if anchors are not found). The fallback to 'next logical header' adds some context, but overall, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or output format, making it insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('replace all content') and includes essential details (anchors and fallback). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly addresses the tool's function without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions), and expected outcomes, failing to provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for all parameters. It mentions 'start_anchor_text' and 'end_anchor_text' and implies their usage, but doesn't explain 'filename', 'new_paragraphs', or 'new_paragraph_style'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter meanings or interactions, such as how 'new_paragraphs' relates to the replacement content.
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 verb 'replace' and specifies the resource as 'content between start_anchor_text and end_anchor_text', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'replace_paragraph_block_below_header' by focusing on manual anchors rather than headers. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of content is being replaced (e.g., in a document), which slightly reduces specificity.
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?
The description implies usage by mentioning the fallback to 'next logical header if not provided' for end_anchor_text, suggesting when to omit that parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replace_paragraph_block_below_header' or 'search_and_replace', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves raw XML, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action but misses details on behavior, output format, and usage context, which are important for effective tool invocation.
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?
The input schema has one parameter ('filename') with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is used to identify the document for XML retrieval, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic type. However, it does not detail format or constraints, such as file extensions or path requirements.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('raw XML structure of a Word document'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_info' or 'get_document_text', which might retrieve different aspects of a document, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_document_text' for plain text or 'get_document_info' for metadata. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists files but does not mention critical behaviors like whether it requires read permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid directories), or if it includes subdirectories. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output format, which are important for a tool interacting with a file system. This results in a description that meets the bare minimum but could be more informative.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter ('directory'), the description adds value by specifying that it lists '.docx files' and uses 'the specified directory'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Directory' title, though it does not detail format constraints (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths). Since there are no parameters beyond this, the description adequately compensates for the low schema coverage.
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 action ('List') and resource ('.docx files in the specified directory'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_info' or 'get_document_text', which might also retrieve document information but in different ways.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_document_info' for metadata or 'find_text_in_document' for content-based searches. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Insert a numbered list') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the insertion modifies the document structure irreversibly, error handling for invalid inputs, or what happens if the target is not found. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details in a compact list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a document mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but misses critical behavioral context (e.g., effects on the document, error scenarios) and output details. This is adequate for minimal understanding but leaves gaps for safe and effective use.
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?
The description lists all parameters (filename, target_text, list_items, position, target_paragraph_index) and provides basic semantics, such as 'before or after' for position and 'list of str' for list_items. With 0% schema description coverage, it compensates well by explaining each parameter's role, though it lacks deeper details like format constraints or default behaviors.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Insert a numbered list'), the target ('before or after the target paragraph'), and the method ('Specify by text or paragraph index'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' by focusing on numbered lists and positional targeting.
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?
The description implies usage through the phrase 'Specify by text or paragraph index,' suggesting when to use text vs. index targeting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text,' and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('insert') but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if the target text is not found. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and subsequent text efficiently detailing parameters without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but misses behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all six parameters, their purposes (e.g., 'target_text' for specifying by text, 'position' as 'before' or 'after'), and default values like 'header_style' as 'Heading 1', fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('insert a header') and resources ('before or after the target paragraph'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_heading' by specifying positional insertion near text rather than general addition.
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?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'specify by text or paragraph index' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_heading' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-word MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/franlealp1/mcp-word/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/franlealp1/mcp-word)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-word MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/franlealp1/mcp-word/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/franlealp1/mcp-word)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/franlealp1/mcp-word'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server