Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hangeul-mcp

Hangeul-mcp

by pblsketch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

find_cell_by_label

Locates the input cell next to or below a label cell in tables, enabling targeted value insertion in HWP/HWPX documents.

Instructions

Locate the input cell next to or under a label cell in tables.

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>",
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "find_cell_by_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
labelYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The term 'locate' implies a read operation, but no explicit behavioral details are given (e.g., returns cell address or content, requires cell to exist). Since no annotations are provided, the description should compensate but does not.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but this brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. It's not well-structured beyond being short.

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 doesn't indicate what the tool returns (cell location? content?). For a relatively simple tool, it still lacks essential context for reliable use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain what 'path' (table path?) or 'label' (text of label cell?) represent, leaving the agent to guess.

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 verb 'locate' and the resource 'input cell next to or under a label cell in tables'. It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar find 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_table_map or find_text. No conditions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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