Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hangeul-mcp

Hangeul-mcp

by pblsketch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mail_merge

Creates one output file per record by merging data into a template, preserving the original formatting and layout.

Instructions

Generate one output per record from a template using the OWN byte-preserving fill engine.

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": {
      "template_path": "<template_path>",
      "records": "<records>",
      "out_dir": "<out_dir>"
    },
    "name": "mail_merge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
out_dirYes
recordsYes
mask_piiNo
template_pathYes

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?

No annotations are provided. The description mentions a proprietary engine but does not disclose side effects, read/write nature, permissions, or limitations. For a generation tool, it is likely non-destructive but unspecified.

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?

A single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It covers the core action and engine but omits important details about parameters and usage context.

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?

Given the tool generates multiple outputs from a template, the description is too minimal. There is no mention of error conditions, output format, or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema mitigates some need for describing return values, but other aspects are lacking.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters (template_path, records, out_dir, mask_pii). It mentions 'template' and 'records' in context but adds no semantic detail beyond the raw schema.

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 it generates output per record from a template using a proprietary 'OWN byte-preserving fill engine'. The verb 'generate' and resource 'template' are specific, but the output type is not explicitly stated, though context from sibling tools suggests document outputs.

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 siblings like fill_form, plan_template_completion, or verify_fill. No mention of prerequisites 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