hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

merge_hwp_cells_vertical

Merges vertical cells across rows in a single column of an HWP table by setting rowSpan on the first cell and removing absorbed cells in following rows.

Instructions

Merge vertical cells across rows in a single column by setting rowSpan on the first cell and removing absorbed cells in following rows. Args: file_path, table_index, col, row_start, row_count (>=2), 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>",
      "col": "<col>",
      "row_start": "<row_start>",
      "row_count": "<row_count>"
    },
    "name": "merge_hwp_cells_vertical"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`table_index`	Yes
`col`	Yes
`row_start`	Yes
`row_count`	Yes
`output_path`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sets rowSpan and removes absorbed cells, but does not explain whether the original file is modified in-place, if a backup is created, or what happens when output_path is omitted. Safety-relevant behaviors (e.g., destructive potential) are under-communicated.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action and mechanism. However, it can be improved by separating the parameter list into a clearer structure, such as bullet points.

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 the complexity of cell merging (a destructive operation) and zero annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks error conditions (e.g., overlapping merges, out-of-bounds), return value information, and implications of optional output_path. The tool’s behavior is under-specified.

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% so the description must explain each parameter's meaning. It lists parameter names and notes row_count >=2, but fails to define indices (e.g., zero-based vs. one-based), valid ranges, or the role of output_path. The col and row_start descriptions are missing crucial numerical context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool merges vertical cells across rows in a single column, and explains the mechanism (rowSpan). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'merge_hwp_cells_horizontal' explicitly, leaving a gap for agents needing to choose between them.

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 parameter constraints (row_count >=2) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that horizontal merging is handled by a sibling tool or specify prerequisites like table existence.

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