Hangeul-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

live_delete_table_rows

Remove specified rows from tables in an active Hangul window using row addresses (e.g., t2.r3). Relies on Hangul's merge-recomputing subtraction to maintain table integrity.

Instructions

Delete table ROWS in the OPEN Hangul window (live-only; Windows + Hangul).

Offline row delete is unsafe (cellAddr/rowCnt/merge recompute), so this drives the open window — Hangul's TableSubtractRow recomputes merges. rows are tN.rN addresses (global table number, 0-based row), e.g. ["t2.r3"]. Plans purely first (fails closed on nested tables / unknown rows / duplicates), deletes bottom-up, and never opens/saves/closes the document. Cold start can take tens of seconds.

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>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "live_delete_table_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`rows`	Yes
`visible`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.6.0Jul 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description fully discloses behavior: uses Hangul's TableSubtractRow, recomputes merges, plans purely first, fails closed, deletes bottom-up, cold start delay. No contradictions.

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?

Concise with effective structure, front-loads purpose. Every sentence adds value, though a bit dense. Could be slightly more streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose, constraints, behavior, and main parameter. Lacks explanation for path and visible, but output schema exists and cold start note is helpful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Rows parameter is well explained with format and example. Path and visible parameters are not described. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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?

Clearly specifies that the tool deletes table rows in the open Hangul window, live-only, with address format 'tN.rN'. Distinguishes from offline deletion which is unsafe.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Describes when to use (live-only, open window) and when not (offline unsafe). Notes failure modes (nested tables, unknown rows, duplicates) and that it never opens/saves/closes the document. No explicit alternative tool names, but context is clear.

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

Deploy Server