Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
officeagent-net

officeagent-net

by ilia-sokolov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

Preview a document merge

preview_document_merge
Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview ordered Word document assembly without saving, preserving source formatting with each document on a new page; returns a merge plan with hashes and blocking diagnostics.

Instructions

Preview ordered whole-document Word assembly without saving. requestJson contains sources [{connectionId, documentId}] in output order and optional options {title, author}. Returns a merge plan bound to exact input hashes, source counts, identifier remapping decisions, and blocking diagnostics. Source formatting is preserved within the documented compatibility scope; each document starts on a new page. This is assembly, not reconciliation of edited versions.

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestJsonYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real substance on top: no saving, hash-bound merge plan output, source counts, identifier remapping decisions, blocking diagnostics, formatting preservation within a documented compatibility scope, and forced page breaks per document. That discloses both side-effect profile and output behavior well beyond the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and non-persistence, then parameters, then return shape, then scope caveats. Information-dense with essentially no filler, though the clause about formatting/compatibility scope is slightly compressed and could be clearer.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the input contract, the non-mutating nature, and the returned plan contents including failure signals (blocking diagnostics). It omits any note on size limits, cost, or what the agent should do with the plan next (e.g., feed it to apply_plan), leaving a small gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and requestJson is an opaque string, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it documents the sources array of {connectionId, documentId} with output-order semantics and the optional options {title, author}. It stops short of listing required-vs-optional status for sources or validation/error shapes, so it is not fully compensating.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Preview ordered whole-document Word assembly without saving") and explicitly scopes it against the nearest sibling by noting it is "assembly, not reconciliation of edited versions," which separates it from compare_documents. An agent can distinguish it from preview_plan/apply_plan without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear usage context (preview before saving, no persistence) and an explicit exclusion (not version reconciliation), which routes the agent away from compare_documents. It does not, however, name the commit path (apply_plan) or state prerequisites such as needing registered documents/connections, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools