office_docs_mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

word_append_table_row

Append a new row to a specified table in a Word document, with optional backup. Specify file path, table index, and column data to update your document.

Instructions

Append a new row of data to an existing table in a Word document.

Args:
    file_path: Path to the Word document.
    table_idx: 0-based index of the table.
    row_data: List of strings for each column in the new row.
    backup: If True, create a backup of the original file before modifying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`backup`	No
`row_data`	Yes
`file_path`	Yes
`table_idx`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the backup behavior ('If True, create a backup of the original file before modifying') and signals that the file is modified, but it does not address invalid table_idx, row_data length mismatches, or reversibility.

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?

One summary sentence plus a compact Args list; no filler. Every line adds information the agent needs.

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?

The description covers all four parameters and the key backup behavior, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary. It is slightly incomplete around failure modes and row/column length validation, but for a simple append-row operation it gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args list in the description must carry the meaning. It does: file_path is 'Path to the Word document', table_idx is '0-based index of the table', row_data is 'List of strings for each column in the new row', and backup explains its behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's bare titles.

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 opens with a specific action ('Append a new row of data') and a specific target ('an existing table in a Word document'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like word_write_table_cell and word_append_paragraph by resource and operation.

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 the tool is for adding rows to an already-created table, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are named or contrasted, so an agent must infer usage from the phrase 'existing table'.

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