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

office-mcp-server

by jiahuidegit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

word_add_heading

Add a heading to a Word document with specified text and level (1-6), optionally enabling auto-numbering.

Instructions

添加标题（支持1-6级）

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>",
      "text": "<text>",
      "level": "<level>"
    },
    "name": "word_add_heading"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes标题文本
docIdYes文档ID
levelYes标题级别
numberingNo是否自动编号

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as how heading insertion interacts with existing content, whether it requires a specific document state, or any side effects. The only added detail (level range) is also present in the schema.

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 compact sentence, which is easy to read and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it misses an opportunity to provide useful context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

For a simple tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic purpose. It is minimally viable but does not explain the effect of numbering or any behavioral implications. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; 'support 1-6 levels' simply restates the enum on the level parameter. No additional context for numbering or docId is provided.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states the verb 'add' and the resource 'heading' clearly, and notes the supported levels (1-6). It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like word_add_paragraph, but the name and scope make the purpose understandable.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., the document must exist), nor does it explain situations where another tool would be preferred.

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