office_docs_mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

word_write_table_cell

Update the text in a specific table cell of a Word document by providing file path, table, row, and column indexes, with optional backup creation.

Instructions

Update text in a specific cell of a table in a Word document.

Args:
    file_path: Path to the Word document.
    table_idx: 0-based index of the table.
    row_idx: 0-based row index.
    col_idx: 0-based column index.
    text: New text content for the cell.
    backup: If True, create a backup of the original file before modifying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`backup`	No
`col_idx`	Yes
`row_idx`	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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the file is modified and that a backup can be created, but it does not describe overwrite semantics, formatting effects, error behavior, or the absence of a backup by default.

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 focused summary sentence followed by a clean Args list where each line earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition of schema defaults.

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 definition is sufficient for a straightforward cell-write call: all six arguments are explained, the 0-based indexing is explicit, and the output schema covers return values. It is only missing higher-level context such as preconditions and sibling differentiation.

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%, but the Args block fully compensates by defining every parameter, including the important 0-based index convention and the behavior of the backup flag. This goes well beyond the bare schema types.

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 verb ('Update') and a precise resource: 'text in a specific cell of a table in a Word document.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like word_read_table or word_append_table_row, and adds value over the title.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is for editing an existing cell rather than appending rows or reading a table.

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