csv-excel-converterConvert between CSV and Excel (.xlsx) in the browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| csv | No | CSV text content (required for csv-to-excel) | |
| excel | No | Base64-encoded Excel file (required for excel-to-csv) | |
| delimiter | No | CSV delimiter | , |
| direction | Yes | Conversion direction | |
| sheetIndex | No | Sheet index for excel-to-csv (0-based) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / csvAdded value: +{
+ "description": "CSV text content (required for csv-to-excel)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / delimiterAdded value: +{
+ "default": ",",
+ "description": "CSV delimiter",
+ "enum": [
+ ",",
+ ";",
+ "\t"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / directionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Conversion direction",
+ "enum": [
+ "csv-to-excel",
+ "excel-to-csv"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / excelAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Base64-encoded Excel file (required for excel-to-csv)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / sheetIndexAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Sheet index for excel-to-csv (0-based)",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "direction"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that conversion happens 'in the browser', which is a useful but minimal behavioral detail. It does not disclose output format, file size limits, data handling, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, containing no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple converter tool.
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?
Despite good schema coverage, the tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide more context. It fails to mention how the conversion works, what the output looks like, or how to handle the two distinct directions and optional parameters. The description is too sparse for a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output guidance.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for all five parameters with descriptions, satisfying the baseline. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate without extra credit.
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 uses a specific verb 'Convert' and clearly identifies the resource as CSV and Excel (.xlsx), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like csv-query or excel-to-pdf by specifying bidirectional conversion between these two formats.
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?
The description implies the usage scenario (converting between CSV and Excel) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The 'in the browser' phrase adds minimal context but does not differentiate sibling tools or provide prerequisites.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as bg-remover, bg-remover-pro, pro-matting, and takumi all performing background removal, and upscaler/upscaler-pro being redundant. With 202 tools, an agent may easily select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools use a consistent kebab-case format with descriptive names like pdf-compress, image-resizer, and tax-return-calc. Exceptions like 'takumi', 'pro-matting', and '-pro' suffixes (bg-remover-pro, upscaler-pro) are minor deviations relative to the total.
202 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The sheer volume makes it unwieldy for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set provides extensive coverage across many domains, including PDF operations (20+ tools), image editing, financial calculations, e-commerce fee estimation, and YouTube utilities. Minor gaps exist in cross-tool integration, but the breadth is highly comprehensive for the apparent purpose.