hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_hwp_paragraph

Delete a specific paragraph from an HWPX document by its zero-based index. Provide the file path and paragraph number; optionally set an output path.

Instructions

Delete the Nth paragraph (0-based) from an .hwpx body. Args: file_path, index, 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>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "delete_hwp_paragraph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`index`	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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not specify whether the operation modifies the file in place, what happens if output_path is omitted, or any side effects. The agent is left uncertain about the tool's impact.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured to separate the purpose from parameter hints.

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 deletion tool with no annotations, the description omits critical information such as error handling (e.g., invalid index), file existence requirements, and default behavior when output_path is not specified. The tool's overall behavior is not fully specified.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting that index is 0-based and that output_path is optional. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is helpful but still lacks details like file_path format or range constraints for index.

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 the action (delete), the resource (paragraph), the source (.hwpx body), and the indexing scheme (0-based). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools that delete images or table elements.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_hwp_image or delete_hwp_table_row. There are no prerequisites or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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