hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

render_hwp_all_pages

Convert all pages of an HWP or HWPX file into SVG images saved to a specified directory, with an optional limit on the number of pages rendered.

Instructions

Render every page of an HWP/HWPX as SVG files in a directory. Args: file_path, output_dir (default _pages/), max_pages (optional limit).

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": "render_hwp_all_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`output_dir`	No
`max_pages`	No

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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions rendering to SVG files in a directory, which is clear, but lacks details on side effects like directory creation, overwriting, or error handling for large files.

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?

The description is a single sentence with a parenthetical listing of parameters, ensuring front-loading of purpose with no extraneous text. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters but omits information about return values, side effects, and typical use cases. It is acceptable but not fully comprehensive.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema properties have no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying defaults (output_dir defaults to '<file>_pages/') and noting max_pages is optional, which goes beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool renders every page of an HWP/HWPX file as SVG files, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like render_hwp_page, which renders a single page.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for rendering all pages (vs. single page via render_hwp_page) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide exclusions or alternatives beyond the implicit sibling contrast.

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