Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hwp-mcp

hwp-mcp

by treesoop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_hwp_info

Retrieve metadata from HWP files including version, page count, section count, fonts used, and totals for tables, images, footnotes, equations, headers, and footers. Provide the file path to get these details.

Instructions

Get document metadata (version, page count, section count, fonts used, totals for tables/images/footnotes/equations/headers/footers). Args: file_path.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_hwp_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, or side effects. Full burden on description, which only states what metadata is retrieved.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no fluff. Could benefit from structured listing of metadata, but overall 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?

Missing critical details: no output schema, no hint on return format (JSON/string), no description of error cases (invalid path, unsupported file). Incomplete for a metadata retrieval tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats 'file_path' without adding any format, restrictions, or semantics beyond the schema. No compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 (Get) and the resource (document metadata), and lists specific metadata items (version, page count, etc.) distinguishing it from sibling tools that extract content.

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 vs alternatives like read_hwp or read_hwp_tables. The agent must infer its purpose from the metadata focus without explicit usage context.

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