hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

append_hwp_paragraph

Append a new paragraph to an HWPX document, preserving the last paragraph's formatting. Specify file path and text; optionally set output path.

Instructions

Append a new paragraph to the end of an .hwpx document body. Clones the last paragraph's structure (paraPr/charPr/style refs) and replaces text. Args: file_path, text, output_path (optional).

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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "append_hwp_paragraph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`output_path`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool clones the last paragraph's structure (paraPr/charPr/style refs) and replaces text, which goes beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention any required permissions or side effects beyond appending.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential behavior. It explains cloning and replacement. Minor omissions: no mention of file existence handling or error cases, but acceptable for a straightforward append operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameter names ('file_path, text, output_path (optional)') but does not explain their types, formats, or constraints. The schema itself only provides types (string). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the names.

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 'Append a new paragraph to the end of an .hwpx document body.' It uses a specific verb (Append) and resource (paragraph), and distinguishes from siblings like append_hwp_table_column or append_hwp_table_row.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 31 sibling tools, context on when to prefer this over e.g., set_hwp_paragraph_text or insert_hwp_table would be helpful but is missing.

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