Read, query, and patch raw HWPX/HWP document parts by XPath when built-in semantic tools don't cover a needed edit.
범용 XML 통로(의미 도구가 없는 속성). action: parts(); get(part, xpath, limit?); patch(part, xpath, op, xml?, name?, value?)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| op | No | ||
| xml | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| part | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| xpath | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| handle | No | document.new/open이 준 handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions patch operations including 'remove' and 'remove_attr' that are clearly destructive, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, or any response behavior, leaving the agent unable to assess safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the core scope statement comes first, followed by a compact action signature list. Every token earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 11% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It omits the 'handle' parameter's role, return values, error handling, and the semantics of key operations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 11%, so the description must compensate. It partially does so by grouping parameters by action (e.g., get uses part, xpath, optional limit; patch uses part, xpath, op, optional xml/name/value), but it does not explain what 'part' means, how xpath is interpreted, or what the op enum values do.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool is a general-purpose XML gateway for properties that lack dedicated semantic tools, and it enumerates the available actions (parts, get, patch) with their signatures. This gives a clear verb+resource purpose and implicitly distinguishes the tool from semantic siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '의미 도구가 없는 속성' implies the tool should be used as a fallback when no semantic tool exists, which is useful implied guidance. However, it does not state when not to use the tool, nor does it name or contrast any specific sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.