docx-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_document

Generate a new .docx file with optional title, paragraph content, and a preset for Japanese business document formatting.

Instructions

Create a new DOCX file. Optionally provide initial content and title.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "create_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path where the new .docx file will be created
`title`	No	Document title (added as Heading 1)
`content`	No	Initial text content. Use newlines to separate paragraphs.
`preset`	No	Optional style preset. 'ja-business' applies Japanese business-document defaults such as Yu Gothic body text and roomier paragraph spacing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'create' (write operation) but fails to disclose whether existing files are overwritten, required permissions, or any side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about critical behaviors.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, efficiently conveys core purpose and optional parameters. Slightly more structure (e.g., listing optional params) could improve readability, but current form is adequate and not verbose.

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?

Given 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for basic usage but lacks details on return values, error handling, or file overwrite behavior. Provides enough for simple creation but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description merely echoes 'initial content and title' from schema without adding new context. The optionality is implied but schema already specifies file_path as required.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool creates a new DOCX file and optionally accepts initial content and title. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are primarily editing, commenting, or formatting operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is the only creation tool among siblings, the description does not provide context on prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tools for similar tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.