Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hwp-mcp

hwp-mcp

by treesoop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

set_hwp_cell_text

Replace text in a specific table cell of an HWPX file. Specify the file, table index, row, and column to update the cell content.

Instructions

Replace a single cell's text in a table inside an .hwpx. Args: file_path, table_index, row, col (all 0-based), text, 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>",
      "table_index": "<table_index>",
      "row": "<row>",
      "col": "<col>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "set_hwp_cell_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
table_indexYes
rowYes
colYes
textYes
output_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'Replace'. Does not disclose whether the file is modified in-place or a new copy; error handling (e.g., missing cell) not mentioned. Behavior like overwriting existing text is implied but not explicit.

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?

One sentence plus parameter list; no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be structured with bullet points for readability, but current form 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?

Missing return value info (success? new path?), error cases (cell out of bounds, file not found), and dependencies (file must have table). With no output schema and 6 parameters, more context is needed for correct usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Description adds value by specifying coordinates are 0-based and output_path is optional. Schema coverage is 0%, so this is minimal but helpful. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but deeper semantics (e.g., what table_index refers to) are not clarified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action and target: 'Replace a single cell's text in a table inside an .hwpx.' It lists the parameters, including coordinate base. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like set_hwp_paragraph_text or merge cells.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., append, merge, replace text). No mention of prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, table must exist at table_index).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools