hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_hwp_image

Remove embedded images from HWPX files by deleting specific BinData entries, reducing file size and extracting clean copies.

Instructions

Delete a BinData/ ZIP entry inside an .hwpx (effectively removes the embedded image bytes). Args: file_path, target (basename or full entry), 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>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "delete_hwp_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the operation (delete) but does not mention side effects (e.g., file modification, destruction), prerequisites, or error conditions. The term 'delete' implies mutation, but more detail is needed for safe agent usage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence plus a parameter list—with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, making it easy to parse quickly. However, a more structured format (e.g., bullets) could improve readability.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, whether the file is modified in place or a new file created, nor its relationship to other image tools like insert_hwp_image or replace_hwp_image.

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 the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters and clarifies 'target' as basename or full entry and 'output_path' as optional. This adds basic meaning beyond the bare schema, but lacks details like format or constraints (e.g., file_path must be a valid .hwpx).

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 deletes a BinData/ZIP entry inside an .hwpx file, effectively removing embedded image bytes. It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_hwp_paragraph by focusing on image removal.

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 such as replace_hwp_image or other deletion tools. The description implies usage for removing images but lacks when-not or context for selection.

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