Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
office-mcp-server

office-mcp-server

by jiahuidegit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

word_add_code

Add a code block to a Word document by providing the document ID, code content, and optional programming language for syntax highlighting.

Instructions

添加代码块

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": {
      "docId": "<docId>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "word_add_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes代码内容
docIdYes文档ID
languageNo编程语言

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose how the code block is inserted, whether it replaces existing content, or what happens on success/failure. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value either.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, one could argue it is under-specified; it achieves conciseness but at the expense of substance, making it only minimally acceptable.

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 with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, edge cases, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. The sibling tools are all document/worksheet operations, but no guidance is provided for when to choose add_code over add_paragraph or add_table.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (docId, code, language), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to given the full schema coverage.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description '添加代码块' (Add code block) merely restates the tool name 'word_add_code', offering no additional detail about what the tool does. It is a tautology that provides no differentiation from sibling tools like word_add_paragraph or word_add_heading.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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