Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hangeul-mcp

Hangeul-mcp

by pblsketch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

analyze_form

Detect fillable fields in HWP/HWPX files including labels, blanks, placeholders, checkboxes, and form fields to identify form structures for AI-powered filling.

Instructions

Detect fillable fields in FILE MODE: labels, inline blanks, placeholders, checkboxes, form fields.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the detection targets but does not cover side effects, permissions, data persistence, or return format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence), but it front-loads the core purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no parameter section) and feels incomplete.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, but the description does not clarify what the output contains, nor does it explain the term 'FILE MODE'. More context is needed for a complete understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention the single required parameter 'path' at all. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to add meaning to the parameter.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's verb 'detect' and resource 'fillable fields', listing specific types. However, 'FILE MODE' is ambiguous and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_formfit'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, file requirements, or scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools