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

Office-MCP-Server

by stoyantsiparov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

word_delete_comment

Delete a comment and its anchor from a Word document by providing the file path and comment ID.

Instructions

Delete a comment and its anchor markers from a Word document

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>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "word_delete_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesAbsolute path to the .docx file
comment_idYesw:id of the comment to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the deletion action and the removal of anchor markers. It does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, behavior on missing comments, or whether related replies are also affected.

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 sentence that leads with the verb and object, with no filler or redundant information.

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 with two fully documented parameters, but the description lacks context about error handling, return values, and side effects on related document elements. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond identifying the comment to delete.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with a clear resource ('a comment') and adds 'and its anchor markers' to define scope, distinguishing it from sibling comment tools like word_add_comment or word_read_comments.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the many comment-related siblings (add, read, reply). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., comment must exist) or alternatives.

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