Office-MCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

word_replace_texts

Find and replace text in Word documents by applying multiple search/replace pairs in one pass, with options for case sensitivity and tracked changes.

Instructions

Find and replace text across a Word document's paragraphs

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>",
      "edits": "<edits>"
    },
    "name": "word_replace_texts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`edits`	Yes	List of search/replace pairs to apply in one pass
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the .docx file
`track_changes`	No	Record this edit as a tracked change (default: true)
`case_sensitive`	No	Match case exactly (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and nothing about document mutation, tracked changes, or how multiple edits are handled. For a tool that modifies a file, 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. It efficiently conveys the essential action and scope without unnecessary detail.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, side effects, and usage expectations. It fails to mention that the document is modified in-place or any behavior around tracked changes, making it incomplete for a mutating 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as syntax details or interplay between parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'find and replace' and the resource 'a Word document's paragraphs', making the core purpose unmistakable. It inherently distinguishes from search-only or paragraph-editing siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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 alternatives like word_search_text or word_edit_paragraphs. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server