Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hangeul-mcp

Hangeul-mcp

by pblsketch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

apply_edit_session

Save a previewed edit session to a new HWP/HWPX file, creating a journal snapshot for restoration.

Instructions

Write a previewed edit session to a NEW file with journal/snapshot for restore.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "apply_edit_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
out_pathNo
session_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says it writes a new file with journal/snapshot. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the preview session is consumed), required permissions, or behavior when out_path is empty. The 'journal/snapshot' jargon is ambiguous.

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?

The description is a single sentence with 14 words, making it very concise. However, the phrase 'with journal/snapshot for restore' could be clearer. No structural issues, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a write tool with two parameters. It lacks details on error handling, output file naming, and the journal/snapshot mechanism. For a medium-complexity tool, it leaves significant gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not mention session_id (required) or out_path (optional), leaving the agent to infer their purposes from context alone. This is a critical gap.

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 writes a previewed edit session to a new file with journal/snapshot for restore. It uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('previewed edit session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'apply_to_current_hwp_document' which modifies existing documents.

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?

The description implies usage when you want to save a previewed edit as a new file, contrasting with siblings that apply edits to existing documents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a valid session_id.

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