hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

replace_hwp_image

Replace an embedded image inside a Hangul .hwpx file by overwriting its BinData ZIP entry with new image file contents.

Instructions

Replace an embedded image inside an .hwpx by overwriting its BinData/ ZIP entry with new file contents. target accepts either basename ('image1.bmp') or full entry path ('BinData/image1.bmp'). Args: file_path, target, source_path, 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>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "source_path": "<source_path>"
    },
    "name": "replace_hwp_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`source_path`	Yes
`output_path`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the overwrite mechanism and that target accepts basename or full path, but lacks details on output behavior when output_path is omitted, permissions needed, or side effects on the original file.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds parameter notes. However, the parameter list is somewhat terse, but overall it is efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a file-modification tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks clarity on the outcome when output_path is omitted (e.g., in-place modification) and error handling when target doesn't exist. More behavioral context is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only elaborates on the 'target' parameter (basename vs full path), while 'file_path' and 'source_path' are merely listed. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema for most parameters.

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 it replaces an embedded image in an .hwpx file by overwriting the BinData/ZIP entry, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_hwp_image or insert_hwp_image.

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 replacing images but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like insert_hwp_image or delete_hwp_image. No exclusions or guidance on prerequisites are provided.

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