Inspect OOXML files: list document parts, extract text, comments, and properties, and flag hidden text or tracked changes for forensic review.
Open an OOXML document (docx/xlsx/pptx): list parts, extract text, comments, properties; flag hidden text and tracked changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| part | No | ||
| image | No | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| local_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output content (parts, text, comments, properties, hidden text, tracked changes) but says nothing about read-only safety, side effects, permissions, rate limits, or pagination.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Every clause adds information about capabilities or scope.
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?
For a tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers what the tool does but omits how to invoke it (e.g., selecting a part, using ref vs local_path) and what to expect from the response.
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 0% for all 5 parameters (ref, part, image, max_chars, local_path), and the description does not explain any parameter or their roles. No meaning is added beyond the bare schema names.
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?
States specific resource (OOXML document: docx/xlsx/pptx) and multiple actions (list parts, extract text, comments, properties; flag hidden text and tracked changes). This distinguishes it from generic file tools in sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned. The opening phrase implies use for OOXML documents, but there is no explicit context for selecting this tool over siblings like extract or read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.