hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

append_hwp_table_column

Add a column to the specified table in an HWPX file by providing cell texts as a JSON string array.

Instructions

Append a new column to the Nth table in an .hwpx. cells is a JSON string array of cell texts (one per row, top-to-bottom). Args: file_path, table_index, cells, 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>",
      "table_index": "<table_index>",
      "cells": "<cells>"
    },
    "name": "append_hwp_table_column"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`table_index`	Yes
`cells`	Yes
`output_path`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the column is appended and clarifies the 'cells' parameter format (JSON string array per row). However, it omits whether the file is modified in-place or a new file is created (output_path optional implies default overwrite), error behavior for invalid table_index, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second specifies cells format and lists arguments. No redundancy, efficient, and front-loaded.

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?

For a file-modifying tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical details: expected file_path format, behavior on invalid table_index or mismatched cells length, whether original file is overwritten by default, and any restrictions. Significant gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'cells' as a JSON string array of cell texts top-to-bottom but provides no semantics for file_path, table_index (0-based?), or output_path defaults. Partial value added but insufficient for all parameters.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Append a new column to the Nth table in an .hwpx.' This specific verb ('append') and resource ('column to table') clearly distinguish it from siblings like 'append_hwp_table_row' or 'delete_hwp_table_column'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_hwp_cell_text, fill_hwp_template). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this operation is appropriate.

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