Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hangeul-mcp

Hangeul-mcp

by pblsketch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

emphasize_text

Find specific text in a file, apply formatting like bold, italic, underline, color, or size, and save the result as a new file.

Instructions

Apply bold/italic/underline/color/size to matched text and write a NEW file (delegate).

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>",
      "find": "<find>",
      "out_path": "<out_path>"
    },
    "name": "emphasize_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boldNo
findYes
pathYes
sizeNo
colorNo
italicNo
out_pathYes
underlineNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool writes a new file, implying the original is unchanged. However, it lacks details on error behavior, pattern matching behavior, or how delegation works. With no annotations, this is minimal but not contradictory.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and outcome.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain how the 'find' pattern works, default values, output format (even with output schema), or edge cases like no matches. More context is needed for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to key parameters: bold, italic, underline, color, size, and find (matched text). It also implies path and out_path. This compensates well for the bare schema.

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 tool applies bold/italic/underline/color/size to matched text and outputs a new file. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools which modify existing documents or perform other operations.

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 like apply_to_current_hwp_document or search_and_replace. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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