Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hwp-mcp

hwp-mcp

by treesoop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_hwp_text

Extract plain text from HWP/HWPX files, skipping tables and images. Returns only body text content.

Instructions

Extract plain body text from an HWP/HWPX file (no tables, no images). 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": "read_hwp_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that tables and images are not extracted, but does not mention return format, error handling, or path validation. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adding 'Args: file_path' is redundant given the schema, but overall concise.

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 extraction tool with one param and no output schema, the description covers what is extracted but omits what is returned (e.g., plain text string) and any success/error conditions.

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?

The single parameter 'file_path' is only named in the description with no added semantics. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify expected path format or requirements, which it does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('plain body text from an HWP/HWPX file') and explicitly excludes tables and images, distinguishing it from related sibling tools like read_hwp_tables and read_hwp.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions stated beyond the extraction scope.

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