office_docs_mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

word_read_paragraphs

Read a specific chunk of paragraphs from a Word document by providing start index and count. Retrieve text for further processing.

Instructions

Read a chunk of paragraphs from a Word document (.docx).

Indices are 0-based.

Args:
    file_path: Path to the Word document.
    start_idx: Starting paragraph index (0-based, default 0).
    count: Number of paragraphs to retrieve (default 30).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`file_path`	Yes
`start_idx`	No

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that indices are 0-based and that count defaults to 30, and 'read' implies a non-mutating operation. It does not cover boundary behavior such as start_idx past the end of the document or how the chunk is ordered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a short note on indexing and a clean Args block. Every sentence adds necessary information without filler.

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 three-parameter read operation, the description covers the tool's purpose and all parameter semantics, and an output schema exists to cover return values. It lacks explicit edge-case/error behavior, but that is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by giving each parameter a meaning: file path, starting paragraph index with 0-based semantics, and count of paragraphs. The defaults are restated, but the 0-based clarification adds real value beyond the schema.

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 a read operation on paragraphs in a .docx file, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates at a glance from siblings like word_read_table and word_search, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: when you need a sequential chunk of paragraphs from a Word document, controlled by start_idx and count. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling read/search tools.

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