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

office-mcp-server

by jiahuidegit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

word_save

Idempotent

Save a Word document with optional headers, footers, and page numbers. Provide the document ID to apply changes.

Instructions

保存文档

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>"
    },
    "name": "word_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docIdYes文档ID
addFooterNo页脚文字
addHeaderNo页眉文字
addPageNumbersNo添加页码

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, and the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not clarify what 'save' entails (e.g., whether it overwrites, creates a new version, or applies header/footer edits) despite the annotations lowering the bar.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely brief (four Chinese characters), which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical context about the operation and parameters, making it insufficiently informative even as a single sentence.

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 4 parameters and optional header/footer/page-number features, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what saving involves or the effect of the parameters, and there is no output schema to compensate, leaving the agent with limited operational understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a short description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies; it does not compensate further but is not lacking due to high 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 '保存文档' (save document) clearly states a verb (save) and a resource (document), making the core action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly mention Word or differentiate itself from sibling tools like excel_save, so it stops short of full 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 lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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