Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Office-MCP-Server

Office-MCP-Server

by stoyantsiparov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

word_add_comment

Add a comment to a specific paragraph in a Word document using its paraId, enabling targeted feedback and collaboration.

Instructions

Add a single comment anchored to a paragraph by paraId

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "para_id": "<para_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "word_add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesComment text
authorNoComment author name (default: 'Claude')
para_idYesw14:paraId of the paragraph to attach the comment to
file_pathYesAbsolute path to the .docx file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior on invalid paraId, return values, or whether the operation modifies the document in a reversible manner. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and free of clutter. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and all parameters are documented, but without annotations or output schema, the description leaves gaps around behavioral expectations (side effects, error cases). It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds slight context about the para_id anchoring but does not meaningfully go beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action (add), the resource (a single comment), and the anchoring target (paragraph by paraId). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'word_add_comments' by emphasizing 'single'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for adding a single comment anchored to a paragraph, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like word_add_comments (plural) or mention when to use one over the other. The 'single' wording provides some differentiation, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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