hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_hwpx_document

Create a .hwpx document from a JSON content list. Supports text items and tables (rendered as flat text rows).

Instructions

Create a new .hwpx file from a JSON content list of {type:'text',text} items. Tables (type:'table',headers,rows) are rendered as flat text rows in v0.2. Args: output_path (must end with .hwpx), content (JSON string of items).

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": {
      "output_path": "<output_path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_hwpx_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output_path`	Yes
`content`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it creates a new file, and tables are rendered as flat text in v0.2. However, it does not mention if it overwrites existing files or error conditions. Since no annotations are provided, this is a good disclosure of behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds a note about table rendering and lists the arguments. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, the description covers the input format well but does not mention success/error responses or what happens on file overwrite. For a creation tool, some additional context on behavior would improve completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by specifying that output_path must end with '.hwpx' and content is a JSON string. It describes the expected JSON structure (list of {type:'text',text} items) and tables, which goes beyond the schema.

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 it creates a new .hwpx file from a JSON content list, specifying item types like text and table. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate existing files, such as append_hwp_paragraph or insert_hwp_table.

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?

The description explains the input format but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives instructions on the JSON content structure but lacks context on usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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