Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hwp-mcp

hwp-mcp

by treesoop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_hwp_table_row

Remove a specific row from a table in an HWPX file by providing the file path, table index, and row index.

Instructions

Delete the Mth row (0-based) from the Nth table (0-based) in an .hwpx. Args: file_path, table_index, row_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>",
      "table_index": "<table_index>",
      "row_index": "<row_index>"
    },
    "name": "delete_hwp_table_row"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
table_indexYes
row_indexYes
output_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a row (destructive action) but does not mention whether it modifies the file in place or requires output_path, permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise, but it omits important details. It is adequate but not well-structured; the reference to 'Args' is informal.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavior when output_path is omitted. For a tool with 4 parameters and no sibling differentiation, more context is needed.

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% (no parameter descriptions), and the description only lists parameter names without adding meaning like allowed values, formats, or constraints. The optional output_path is mentioned but not explained.

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 a row) and the resource (table in an .hwpx file) with precise 0-based indexing. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_hwp_table_column and delete_hwp_paragraph by specifying table and row indices.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when other tools (e.g., delete_hwp_table_column) would be better.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools