Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hangeul-mcp

Hangeul-mcp

by pblsketch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_page_size

Adjust paper size and orientation of a HWP/HWPX document and output a new file with the specified dimensions.

Instructions

Set paper width/height/orientation (e.g. PORTRAIT/LANDSCAPE) 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>",
      "out_path": "<out_path>"
    },
    "name": "set_page_size"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
widthNo
heightNo
out_pathYes
orientationNo

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?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly says 'write a NEW file' indicating it doesn't modify input, but omits details like overwrite policy, required permissions, or side effects. 'Delegate' is unexplained.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loads purpose. However, the term '(delegate)' is unnecessary and harms clarity. Could be improved by removing the jargon.

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?

With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool needs more context. Output schema exists but not described. For a tool that writes files, missing info on return values and error handling is a gap.

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 coverage is 0% and description barely adds value. It mentions width, height, orientation but not path or out_path. Default values are not explained, and no constraints or valid values are provided.

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?

Description clearly states it sets paper width, height, or orientation and writes a new file. The verb 'set' and target 'paper size/orientation' are specific. However, the term '(delegate)' is ambiguous and may confuse.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'write a NEW file' hints at behavior but does not compare with sibling tools that might modify in-place or have different scopes.

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