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

Office-MCP-Server

by stoyantsiparov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

word_search_text

Search a Word document for matching text by specifying the file path and query, with optional case-sensitive matching.

Instructions

Search a Word document's paragraphs for matching text

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>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "word_search_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesText to search for
file_pathYesAbsolute path to the .docx file
case_sensitiveNoMatch case exactly (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose what the search returns (e.g., paragraph numbers, matched text snippets). This lack of disclosure could lead to incorrect expectations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the result of a search is (e.g., list of matches, locations) and any limitations (e.g., only paragraphs, not headers/footers). None of this is provided, leaving the tool's behavior incomplete for the agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since the schema is complete.

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 a specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource 'Word document's paragraphs', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like word_replace_texts or word_read_document. The scope of matching text is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as word_read_document or word_replace_texts. The purpose implies a read-only search, but that is not stated.

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