hwp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_hwp_paragraph_text

Replace the text of a specific paragraph in an HWPX file while preserving its formatting and attributes.

Instructions

Replace the entire text of the Nth paragraph (0-based) in an .hwpx body with new text. The paragraph attributes (paraPr/style refs) are preserved; runs are collapsed into a single hp:run with the new text. Args: file_path, index, 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>",
      "index": "<index>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "set_hwp_paragraph_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`index`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`output_path`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that paragraph attributes are preserved and runs are collapsed into a single run. However, it does not mention side effects like in-place modification when output_path is omitted, or error handling. Without annotations, more detail would be helpful.

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?

The description is two sentences plus an args list, with no redundant information. Every sentence provides distinct, useful details. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description covers core behavior and parameter list, but lacks details about file format requirements, in-place modification behavior when output_path is omitted, and potential error conditions. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, it is adequate but not complete.

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 lists parameter names but does not explain their formats, constraints, or valid values. For example, index is 0-based and file_path must be a valid file path. This minimal information adds little beyond the parameter names.

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 the verb 'Replace', the resource 'Nth paragraph in an .hwpx body', and specifies that attributes are preserved and runs are collapsed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_hwp_cell_text.

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 use for replacing paragraph text, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like append_hwp_paragraph or apply_hwp_paragraph_style. No exclusion or context for when not to use.

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