Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hwp-mcp

hwp-mcp

by treesoop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_hwp_fields

List all Hancom-style fields in a HWP document with name and type, enabling preview of placeholders before template filling.

Instructions

List Hancom-style fields (<hp:fldBegin>/end pairs) in the document, with name and type when available. Useful before fill_hwp_template. 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_fields"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions listing fields with name and type, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or any side effects.

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 short and to the point, with a clear statement of function and a brief mention of the argument. It earns its length without unnecessary fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. However, it could be improved by describing the return format or expected output.

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 coverage is 0% with no description for file_path. The description merely says 'Args: file_path' without adding format or constraints, failing to compensate for the missing schema information.

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 tool lists Hancom-style fields with name and type, and mentions its usefulness before fill_hwp_template. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hwp_field_value or fill_hwp_template.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Useful before fill_hwp_template', providing a clear use case. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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