Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Excel Write Cell

excel_write_cell

Writes a value to a specific cell in an Excel file. Address the cell either with cell in A1 notation (e.g. "B2") or with row+column as 1-based integers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowNoRow number (1-based) — use with `column`, or use `cell` instead
cellNoCell in A1 notation, e.g. "B2" (alternative to row+column)
pathYesPath to the .xlsx file
valueYesValue to write
columnNoColumn number (1-based) — use with `row`, or use `cell` instead
confirmNoMust be true to modify
sheet_nameNoSheet name (default: first sheet)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colYesColumn that was written (1-based)
rowYesRow that was written (1-based)
valueYesValue written to the cell
writtenYesTrue when the cell was written

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a write operation. The description doesn't add detail about whether the file is created if missing, whether overwriting existing values occurs, or what happens with invalid addresses. The mention of two addressing alternatives is useful but not deep behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that immediately state the action and the key usage flexibility. Every clause earns its place—no filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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 tool has an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It adequately covers the dual addressing modes and the sheet default. For a mutation tool with a confirm flag, slightly more guidance on the confirm behavior could help, but the description is reasonably complete given the richness of the annotations and schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the dual addressing modes (cell vs row+column) and that sheet_name defaults to the first sheet, complementing the schema. The confirm parameter's requirement is stated in the schema but could benefit from more emphasis in the description.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Writes a value to a specific cell in an Excel file'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like excel_create and excel_read. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mutation tools or note what makes it distinct beyond the basic resource and action.

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 clearly explains the two addressing modes (cell notation vs row+column integers) and when each applies. It also mentions the confirm flag requirement implicitly through the schema. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like excel_read or state when NOT to use it, but the addressing guidance is genuinely useful for invocation.

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