hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_hwp_bindata

Lists image and binary attachments stored in BinData/ inside .hwpx files. Useful for previewing before replacing images.

Instructions

List ZIP entries under BinData/ inside an .hwpx (image and binary attachments). Useful before replace_hwp_image. 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": "list_hwp_bindata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It implies read-only operation ('List... entries') but does not elaborate on side effects or performance. Adequate for a straightforward listing tool.

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?

Extremely concise—two sentences covering purpose, scope, and usage hint. No extraneous text. Front-loaded essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and single parameter, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function and context. Could mention return format but not essential for usability.

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?

Only one parameter (file_path) with 0% schema description coverage. The description repeats the parameter name ('Args: file_path') but adds no additional meaning or constraints 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?

Clearly states the tool lists ZIP entries under BinData/ in .hwpx files, specifically image and binary attachments. Differentiates from siblings by mentioning its utility before replace_hwp_image.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a usage hint ('Useful before replace_hwp_image') that guides the agent on when to use it among siblings. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is sufficient for a simple tool.

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