hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

render_hwp_equation_svg

Convert OWPML equation scripts to SVG images, with options for font size and color.

Instructions

Render an OWPML equation script (e.g. 'TIMES LEFT ( {a} over {b} RIGHT )') to SVG. Args: script, font_size (HWP units, default 1300), color (default 0).

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": {
      "script": "<script>"
    },
    "name": "render_hwp_equation_svg"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`script`	Yes
`font_size`	No
`color`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavior. It only states the action and defaults but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or return value format.

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?

Single sentence with args listed efficiently. No redundant words, fully front-loaded.

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?

Simple tool, but missing output type (SVG string vs. file path) and error conditions. Acceptable for a straightforward rendering tool but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds an example for script, units for font_size, and defaults for both font_size and color. However, the color parameter's format remains unspecified.

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?

Clear verb ('render'), resource ('OWPML equation script'), output ('SVG'), and a concrete example. Distinct from sibling tools like render_hwp_page which render whole pages.

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 implies usage for rendering equation scripts via the example and name. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sibling names provide sufficient differentiation.

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