Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to doc-control

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to edit Microsoft Word documents live while they are open, with full support for tracked changes, comments, formatting, and 124 tools.
    565 PyPI
    259
    MIT
  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Structure-preserving Word DOCX editing MCP server with a .NET Open XML backend and Office.js live sessions. Enables safe, auditable, incremental editing of Microsoft Word documents for AI agents.
    63
    12 npm
    10
    AGPL 3.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents on Windows to drive real Microsoft Word and WPS Office applications through COM, automating legacy .doc/.docx batch conversion, bookmark and placeholder template filling, print-fidelity PDF export, extraction from legacy binaries, editing of documents currently open on screen, and mail-merge batch generation. It hardens these operations with CJK font preservation, password and corruption pre-checks, structured self-correcting errors, path allowlisting, read-only mode, and automatic Word-to-WPS failover.
    1
    MIT

Related Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to read, edit, and create Microsoft Word documents (.docx) with support for rich text, tables, and images, deployable locally or via SSE.
    3
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to read and edit Word (.docx) and PDF documents with byte-level fidelity, using minimal in-package rewrites for DOCX and text-layer detection with page rendering for PDF, including OCR-free handling of scanned files via image output.
    7
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to generate format-stable, editable Word DOCX documents from structured content and reusable templates, with document type recognition, schema retrieval, template rendering, validation, and conservative fixes.
    MIT

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored across 68 tools

Disambiguation2/5

The 68-tool surface contains several clusters whose boundaries blur in practice: layout.get vs section.list, review.list vs comment.list/revision.list, doc.info vs doc.stats vs para.list/doc.outline, and history.list vs history.search. Descriptions do distinguish them, but an agent must read carefully to pick correctly, and multiple read tools target overlapping views of the same document.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a predictable resource_verb pattern (para_get, style_update, history_undo, text_replace, table_row_insert), and names are consistently snake_case. Minor deviations like doc_batch (itself referred to as doc.batch), live_get_selection vs live_select, and styleset_export_dotx keep it from perfect consistency.

Tool Count2/5

68 tools is far too many for a single document-control server, even one covering editing, styles, revisions, fields, layout, live editing, and history. The surface could be consolidated substantially without losing capability.

Completeness5/5

Coverage is unusually thorough: paragraphs, tables, styles, comments, tracked revisions, fields, TOC/index entries, notes, layout, live app control, undo/restore history, recipes, and cross-references. No obvious lifecycle gap for a Word-document control server.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessResponsive