- Example 1: Generating a DOCX file
- Example 2: Generating a XLSX file
- Example 3: Generating a PPTX file
- Example 4: Reviewing a DOCX file with comments
Word generation modes:
ENABLE_WORD_ELEMENT_FILLING=falseis the default mode. In this mode the LLM writes Python code and the backend executes it to generate the DOCX. This default mode supports images uploaded in the chat.ENABLE_WORD_ELEMENT_FILLING=trueis an experimental structured mode where the model decides the logical order of document elements and their content while the backend builds the DOCX from a template instead of executing generated code. This experimental mode aims to replace code generation over time, but not all models perform well yet. TheResults Summary 📊benchmark below gives a practical idea of which tested models performed best in this mode.
This alpha version includes both DOCX generation approaches. The examples below show the kind of output GenFilesMCP can produce in practice.
This new version can include images embedded directly into the generated Word document, sourced from chat uploads. This allows for richer, visual content in the documents without relying on external links.
Your assistant can generate documents with one column or two columns for academic papers.
You can find results like this in the example\DOCX folder of the repository. Each document was exported manually as .pdf to be able to view the results in github, but you can find the original .docx files in the same folder.
Scoring scale: 1 = full star, 0.5 = half star, 0 = empty star.
Criteria (brief):
- C1 Image Use: correct and meaningful integration of provided images.
- C2 Structure: logical flow and coherence.
- C3 Word Elements: good use of title/sections/tables/lists/images/formatting.
- C4 Depth: ability to develop the topic with complete, well-elaborated paragraphs (not short, shallow ones).
- C5 First-Try Success: generated successfully on first attempt.
| Model | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | Total | Stars |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT 4.1 mini | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 3.0 | ★★★☆☆ |
| GPT 5.1 mini | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 3.5 | ★★★⯪☆ |
| GPT 5.1 Codex mini | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 4.0 | ★★★★☆ |
| GPT 5.2 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 4.5 | ★★★★⯪ |
| Claude 3 Haiku | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 3.0 | ★★★☆☆ |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.0 | ★★★★★ |
| Google Gemini 3 Flash Preview | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3.5 | ★★★⯪☆ |
| Gemini 3 Pro Preview | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | ☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Grok Code 4.1 Fast | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 4.0 | ★★★★☆ |
| Kimi K2.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.0 | ★★★★★ |
| Mistral 14B 2512 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | ☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Qwen3 VL 8B Thinking | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3.0 | ★★★☆☆ |
| Model | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | Total | Stars |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grok Code Fast 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.0 | ★★★★☆ |
| DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus | N/A | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.0 | ★★★★☆ |
- 🏆 Best overall: Claude Haiku 4.5 and Kimi K2.5 (5.0/5).
- ✅ Acceptable performance (4.0 to <5.0): GPT 5.2 (4.5), GPT 5.1 Codex mini (4.0), Grok Code 4.1 Fast (4.0), Grok Code Fast 1 (4.0), DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (4.0).
⚠️ Weakest results: Gemini 3 Pro Preview (0.0) and Mistral 14B 2512 (0.0).- ℹ️ In this evaluation, C1 = 0 means the model failed to call the tool needed to identify attached images.
- 🔎 Content factuality, hallucinations, and technical correctness were not evaluated here, because this benchmark focuses on structure, tool use, and first-pass execution; users must validate factual quality independently.
If your model does not have vision capabilities do not attach images in the chat, as the agent will not be able to see them and include them in the document.
Open the generated file in Excel:
Example files: You can find example XLSX files in the
examplefolder.
In this example, another MCP server was used for web research and GenFiles MCP Server was used to generate a PowerPoint presentation:
Open the generated file in PowerPoint:
Example files: You can find example PPTX files in the
examplefolder.
The review feature allows the agent to analyze uploaded documents and add structured comments for improvements.
Workflow:
- User uploads
History_of_Neural_Nets_Summary.docxto the chat - User requests a review with comments for corrections, grammar suggestions, and idea enhancements
- Agent calls the
chat_contextcustom tool to retrieve file ID and name - Agent uses the
list_docx_elementstool to analyze the document structure - Agent calls the
review_docxtool to add comments to specific elements
Result:
Example files: Find the reviewed document in the
examplefolder:History_of_Neural_Nets_Summary_69d1751b-577b-4329-beca-ac16db7acdbd_reviewed.docx
Generated using the GenFiles MCP Server and GPT-5 mini
The review functionality preserves the original formatting while adding structured comments








