hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

render_hwp_html

Converts a page from HWP or HWPX files into HTML format, enabling AI assistants to read document content when SVG rendering is not suitable.

Instructions

Render a single page of an HWP/HWPX as HTML. Useful for AI consumption when SVG isn't ideal. Args: file_path, page (0-based, default 0), 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>"
    },
    "name": "render_hwp_html"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`page`	No
`output_path`	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 provided, so description carries burden. Discloses page parameter 0-based and default 0, and output_path optional. However, does not mention any behavioral traits like file access requirements or output format (e.g., returns string vs. writes to file).

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists parameters with key details. No extraneous text, front-loaded purpose.

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?

Description is adequate for a simple tool with no output schema or annotations. But lacks details on return value (e.g., whether it returns HTML string or writes to output_path) and fails to mention any prerequisites or side effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description provides all parameter info: file_path, page (0-based, default 0), output_path (optional). Adds value beyond bare schema via defaults and semantics.

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?

Clearly states 'Render a single page of an HWP/HWPX as HTML.' Differentiates from sibling tools like render_hwp_all_pages by specifying single page, and from render_hwp_equation_svg by targeting HTML output.

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?

States 'Useful for AI consumption when SVG isn't ideal,' providing some context but not explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like render_hwp_page or render_hwp_all_pages. No direct exclusions.

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