sota-agw-mcp

Xem trường của template tô vàng

template_inspect

Read-only

Inspect DOCX/XLSX templates to identify yellow-highlighted fields, then return the field list and a JSON schema describing expected values.

Instructions

Template DOCX/XLSX: các đoạn tô VÀNG là trường cần điền. Trả danh sách trường + JSON schema giá trị.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "template_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful domain behavior beyond that: it supports DOCX/XLSX templates and interprets yellow-highlighted paragraphs as fields to fill, and it says it returns a field list with a JSON schema of values.

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 two short sentences with no wasted wording, and the key domain rule about yellow highlighting is front-loaded before the return summary.

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 read-only, annotations cover safety behavior, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. Still, the path parameter is undocumented and there is no explicit workflow guidance linking this inspection step to template_fill.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what 'path' means beyond the general mention of DOCX/XLSX templates. It adds some format context but does not compensate for the missing path semantics.

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 states a specific inspection action for DOCX/XLSX templates: locating yellow-highlighted passages that represent fields to fill and returning the field list plus a JSON schema of values. It is clear enough to distinguish this from template_fill, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the explanation that yellow paragraphs are fields that need filling, which suggests calling this before filling. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it, when not to, or that template_fill is the follow-up alternative, so guidance remains implicit.

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

Deploy Server