office_docs_mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

word_delete_paragraph

Remove a specific paragraph from a Word document by its index. Specify the file path and paragraph position to delete unwanted content while optionally keeping a backup.

Instructions

Delete a specific paragraph from a Word document by its 0-based index.

Args:
    file_path: Path to the Word document (.docx).
    paragraph_idx: 0-based index of the paragraph to delete.
    backup: If True, create a backup of the original file before modifying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`backup`	No
`file_path`	Yes
`paragraph_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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states the action is destructive ('delete') and mentions the backup option, which implies file modification. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., out-of-bounds index), whether the file is saved in place, or any side effects beyond the deletion. The backup mention adds some transparency, but the description remains minimal.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. It uses a clean Args block to detail parameters without unnecessary prose. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable for an agent.

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 delete operation with three parameters, the description covers all necessary invocation details. It does not describe return values, but an output schema exists, so per the rubric the description need not explain them. Edge cases like invalid index are not mentioned, but these are likely handled by the output schema. The description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 description fully compensates by explicitly explaining each parameter: file_path is the path to the .docx, paragraph_idx is the 0-based index, and backup controls whether a backup is created before modification. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles and leaves no ambiguity about parameter intent.

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 action (delete) and the resource (a specific paragraph from a Word document) with a precise identifier (0-based index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_read_paragraphs or word_append_paragraph without ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where deletion is appropriate, nor does it contrast with other editing tools (e.g., word_replace_text). The backup parameter hints at a safety consideration, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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