查看 Excel 结构：各 sheet 的列名/类型/行数 + 前 N 行预览。免费(0 credit)。
出图前先调它看清有哪些 sheet、列、哪些列是数值，再据此选 chart_type 与 x/y。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | No | 已上传到文件中转站的 Excel 文件 ID（与 data_base64 二选一） | |
| data_base64 | No | Excel(.xlsx) 内容的 base64（与 file_id 二选一，适合未上传的临时数据） | |
| preview_rows | No | 每个 sheet 预览的前 N 行 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the output (sheet names, column names/types/row counts, preview rows) and notes it's free (0 credit). While no output schema exists, the description covers key behavioral aspects. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first defines the tool's function, second provides usage guidance. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately outlines what is returned. It explains the purpose and what to expect, but could mention that the tool is read-only and idempotent more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description aligns with the preview_rows parameter ('前N行预览') but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it inspects Excel structure (columns, types, row counts, preview rows). It distinguishes from siblings like excel_query, excel_to_chart, and excel_write by framing it as a preliminary step for charting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises calling this before charting ('出图前先调它'), and explains why: to identify sheets, columns, numeric columns for chart_type and axes selection. Provides clear context without needing exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
每个工具都有清晰且独特的用途：inspect查看结构，query查询数据，to_chart生成图表，write写入Excel。描述中明确区分了它们，没有重叠或混淆的可能。
命名统一使用'excel_'前缀，后接动词形式（inspect, query, write），但to_chart使用了介词结构，略微打破一致模式。整体仍可预测且清晰。
4个工具覆盖了Excel可视化的核心流程：结构查看、数据查询、图表生成、结果写入。数量适中，没有冗余，但可能缺少合并或格式调整等辅助功能。
工具集提供了从探索到输出完整闭环：先inspect了解结构，再用query获取数据，然后用to_chart生成图表，最后用write保存结果。没有明显遗漏，完全满足可视化目标。