hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

render_hwp_page

Render a specific page of a Hangul Word Processor document as SVG, returning the SVG string for direct use or saving to a file.

Instructions

Render a single page of an HWP/HWPX document as SVG. If output_path is omitted, the raw SVG string is returned inline (useful for direct LLM consumption). 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_page"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Describes output behavior (inline vs file) but omits details on side effects, permissions, or error handling. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 plus args list, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, but could integrate args more naturally.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 3-parameter render tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers key aspects: purpose, SVG output, and dual mode (inline/file). Lacks error handling or format constraints but sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: explains page is 0-based with default 0 and output_path is optional. Adds value 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?

States 'Render a single page of an HWP/HWPX document as SVG.' Uses specific verb+resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like render_hwp_all_pages and render_hwp_equation_svg.

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?

Explains that omitting output_path returns inline SVG string, useful for LLM consumption. Provides args list. Lacks explicit when-not and alternative sibling tools, but context is clear.

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