Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

evaluate_formula

Evaluate a formula expression against an actual Dock workspace's columns + rows, server-side, returning the same display value the UI's HyperFormula engine would render. Two modes: STANDALONE (omit workspace_slug) — evaluates against an empty grid; useful for =SUM(1, 2, 3) or any formula with no cell references. IN-WORKSPACE (pass workspace_slug, optionally at) — loads the workspace's grid, evaluates the formula as if pasted into the at cell (or A1 if omitted), resolves real refs against actual data. Returns { ok, displayValue, error? }. Workspace mode requires read access; standalone mode is public.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
atNoOptional anchor cell (only used with workspace_slug). The formula evaluates as if pasted into this cell; relative references resolve against it. Omit to anchor at the workspace's first cell.
formulaYesFormula expression including '='. Max 4000 chars.
workspace_slugNoOptional workspace slug. Pass to evaluate against the workspace's actual rows + columns. Accepts bare or org-prefixed form.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses server-side evaluation, the empty-grid behavior in standalone mode, cell anchoring semantics, relative reference resolution, auth requirements, and the return shape. This goes well beyond a simple verb statement.

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 front-loaded with a clear core statement, then uses labeled modes for scannability. Each sentence adds necessary information (modes, return shape, auth) without fluff. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description properly explains the return object and error field. It covers both modes, anchoring behavior, auth requirements, and even max formula length is in the schema. The description is complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact (workspace_slug toggles mode, 'at' anchors relative references) and clarifies the optionality and semantics. This exceeds the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 it evaluates a formula expression against a Dock workspace, returning the display value. It explicitly distinguishes two modes (STANDALONE and IN-WORKSPACE) and differentiates from sibling validate_formula by focusing on computation rather than validation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use each mode: standalone for formulas without cell references, and in-workspace with actual data. It also notes auth requirements (read access for workspace mode, public for standalone). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like validate_formula or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

All Dock toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources