Export a Word document's styles as a JSON style set, optionally writing it to a file and filtering to selected or custom styles only.
The document's styles as a JSON style set; optionally also saved to a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | Path to the .docx. | |
| out | No | Also write the JSON here. | |
| name | No | Set name. | |
| styles | No | Only these styles (ids or names). | |
| custom_only | No | Only user-defined styles. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: that the JSON is optionally persisted to a file via the `out` parameter. Since there is no output schema, more on the returned structure would have helped, but the note about the disk write is genuine added value.
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?
A single terse sentence with no waste and the core outcome front-loaded. It is a noun fragment rather than a verb phrase, which slightly weakens the lead, but nothing is padded.
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 five parameters, a 100%-covered schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the essentials are available elsewhere. The description still omits what the JSON style set contains, how filtering interacts, and any error behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.
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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the `out` behavior and says nothing about `name`, `styles`, or `custom_only`, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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 fragment clearly conveys the action (extract the document's styles as a JSON style set) and the optional file output. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling styleset_export-dotx (which presumably exports the same data in a different format) or from styles_list, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as styles_list or styleset_export-dotx. The agent must infer the choice purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.