AIを活用したWord文書操作機能を提供するモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバー。このサーバーはMCPプロトコルを実装しており、AIアプリケーションが自然言語によるインタラクションを通じてWord文書を作成、編集、管理できるようにします。
完全なMCPプロトコル実装
Word文書の作成と管理
リッチテキストコンテンツの操作
表の作成と書式設定
ドキュメントレイアウト制御
ドキュメントメタデータ管理
リアルタイムのドキュメント状態監視
Related MCP server: Word Document MCP Server
Node.js 14以上
Microsoft Word（オプション、高度な機能用）
npx @puchunjie/doc-tools-mcpまたはグローバルにインストールします:
npm install -g @puchunjie/doc-tools-mcpプロジェクトの依存関係として使用する場合:
npm install @puchunjie/doc-tools-mcpMCP サーバーを起動します。
npx @puchunjie/doc-tools-mcpサーバーはデフォルトでポート8765で起動します
MCP サーバーを使用するように AI アプリケーション (例: Cursor、VSCode) を構成します。
http://localhost:8765サーバーは次の MCP 機能を提供します。
create_document - 新しいWord文書を作成する
パラメータ: filePath (必須)、タイトル、著者
open_document - 既存のWord文書を開く
パラメータ: filePath (必須)
add_paragraph - 文書に段落を追加する
パラメータ: filePath (必須)、text (必須)、style、alignment
add_table - ドキュメントに表を追加する
パラメータ: filePath (必須)、rows (必須)、cols (必須)、headers、data
search_and_replace - 文書内のテキストを検索して置換する
パラメータ: filePath (必須)、searchText (必須)、replaceText (必須)、matchCase
set_page_margins - ドキュメントのページ余白を設定する
パラメータ: filePath (必須)、top、right、bottom、left
get_document_info - ドキュメントのメタデータを取得する
パラメータ: filePath (必須)
カーソル設定ファイル~/.cursor/mcp.jsonを開きます。
次の構成を追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"doc-tools-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"@puchunjie/doc-tools-mcp"
]
}
}
}
またはローカル開発バージョンの場合:
{
"mcpServers": {
"doc-tools-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/path/to/your/doc-tools-mcp/dist/mcp-server.js"
]
}
}
}設定後、自然言語を使用して Word 文書を操作できます。
"Create a new document named report.docx"
"Add a heading 'Monthly Report' to report.docx"
"Insert a 4x3 table with sales data"MCPプロトコルをサポートする他のツールにも同様の統合手順が適用されます。具体的なMCPサーバーの設定手順については、ツールのドキュメントを参照してください。
この MCP サーバーを拡張または変更するには:
リポジトリをクローンします。
git clone <repository-url>
cd doc-tools-mcp依存関係をインストールします:
npm install開発モードで開始します:
npm run start生産用にビルド:
npm run buildsrc/services/DocumentService.tsに新しいメソッドを追加します
src/mcp-server.tsに新しい関数を登録する
必要に応じて型定義を更新する
デフォルトポート: 8765 (設定可能)
サポートされているファイル形式: .docx
すべてのファイルパスは絶対パスまたは現在の作業ディレクトリからの相対パスである必要があります
マサチューセッツ工科大学
問題が発生した場合や改善の提案がある場合は、GitHub リポジトリに問題を送信してください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| style | No | ||
| alignment | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | ||
| rows | Yes | ||
| cols | Yes | ||
| headers | No | ||
| data | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| author | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | ||
| searchText | Yes | ||
| replaceText | Yes | ||
| matchCase | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | ||
| top | No | ||
| right | No | ||
| bottom | No | ||
| left | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
add_paragraphadd_tablecreate_documentget_document_infoopen_documentsearch_and_replaceset_page_marginsScored across 7 tools
The tools have clearly distinct purposes targeting different document operations: creating documents, opening them, adding content (paragraphs/tables), modifying content (search/replace), adjusting layout (margins), and retrieving metadata. There is minor potential overlap between 'create_document' and 'open_document' if 'open' implies creation, but they are generally distinct.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout (e.g., add_paragraph, create_document, get_document_info). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and readable.
With 7 tools, this is a well-scoped set for a document management server. It covers core operations without being overly sparse or bloated, aligning with typical tool counts for focused domains like this.
The tools cover creation, opening, content addition, basic editing, layout adjustment, and info retrieval, but there are notable gaps. Missing operations include updating or deleting documents, managing document versions, or handling more complex formatting, which could limit agent workflows in a document management context.
Create and manage documents, spreadsheets, and presentations from your AI assistant.
Create real Word .docx files from your AI chat: proposals, quotes, contracts, statements of work.
Real Word and Excel for agents: open your .docx/.xlsm, read, propose, apply, get it back intact.
AI-powered PDF tools: fill forms via natural language
