docx-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

highlight_text

Find and highlight specific text in a Word document by specifying the text, file path, and color. Supports case-sensitive matching.

Instructions

Highlight all occurrences of text with a specified color.

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>",
      "search": "<search>"
    },
    "name": "highlight_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the .docx file
`search`	Yes	Text to highlight
`color`	No	Highlight color: yellow, green, cyan, magenta, blue, red, etc.	yellow
`case_sensitive`	No	Case-sensitive matching

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it highlights text but does not disclose that it modifies the file (destructive action), potential side effects, or any performance implications. Minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required), the description is too brief. It does not mention default behaviors (color default 'yellow'), that all occurrences are highlighted, or any return value. Incomplete for informed agent selection.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100% and all parameters are described in the schema, baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, merely summarizing the action.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Highlight'), the resource ('all occurrences of text'), and the parameter ('with a specified color'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'replace_texts' or 'format_text'.

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, such as 'search_text' or 'format_text'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or when not to use it.

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