Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Excel Read

excel_read
Read-only

Reads data from an Excel spreadsheet (.xlsx file). Returns the first row as headers and the remaining data rows as rows — mirroring excel_create's headers/rows params, so a read→create round-trip needs no manual row-0 handling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the .xlsx file
max_rowsNoMax rows to return (default 100)
sheet_nameNoSheet name to read (optional, reads first sheet)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYesData rows AFTER the header row (each an array of cell-value strings) — feeds straight into excel_create's `rows`
countYesNumber of DATA rows returned (excludes the header row)
sheetYesName of the sheet that was read
sheetsYesAll sheet names in the workbook
headersYesThe first row, as column headers — mirrors excel_create's `headers` param
sparse_cellsNoPresent only when the sheet has cells far outside the table (beyond column 64): each is {row, col, value} with REAL 1-based indices. Kept out of `rows` so one stray cell can't pad every row — but never dropped.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the exact return structure (first row as headers, remaining as rows) and its compatibility with excel_create's parameter shape. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not discuss edge cases or error behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and file type, and each sentence earns its place. It conveys purpose, return format, and a practical integration tip without any fluff. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

With a rich output schema and full schema coverage for parameters, the description only needs to cover behavior, which it does efficiently. It explains the round-trip relationship with excel_create, which is valuable context. It could mention default sheet behavior, but the schema already states 'reads first sheet', so the description remains sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for path, max_rows, and sheet_name. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents; it only explains the result structure (headers/rows), not parameter details. Thus the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 and resource: 'Reads data from an Excel spreadsheet (.xlsx file).' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like excel_create and excel_write_cell by focusing on reading and returning headers/rows. The explicit mirroring of excel_create's params also reinforces its unique role in read→create round-trips.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to read an Excel file, especially to later create one via excel_create. It mentions the round-trip use case, providing context beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like file_read or explain when not to use it, so a small gap remains.

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

All local-mcp 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources