edit_csv_cellsApply up to 1,000 explicit edits to existing cells only. Zero-based row indices include the header. Duplicate coordinates apply in input order. Return complete CSV with literal string values; never evaluate formulas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| csv | Yes | Complete UTF-8 CSV text, up to 256 KiB. All cells remain strings; formulas are never evaluated. | |
| edits | Yes | ||
| delimiter | No | Explicit delimiter; no delimiter inference. | , |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive already declared, the description adds substantial new context: zero-based indexing that includes the header, duplicate coordinates applied in input order, and that values stay literal strings with formulas never evaluated. These are exactly the execution semantics an agent cannot infer from annotations.
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?
Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and capacity limit, then indexing rules, then duplicate handling and return contract. No filler.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by specifying the return ('complete CSV with literal string values'), plus delimiter behavior is covered by the schema. Minor omission: no statement of what happens on out-of-range row/column or invalid CSV.
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 67% and the 'row' property has no schema description, so the description's 'zero-based row indices include the header' is the only source for that critical detail; duplicate-coordinate ordering is also unique to the description. The delimiter parameter is left entirely to the schema, which does document it with 'no delimiter inference'.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Apply ... edits to existing cells') and bounds the operation ('existing cells only', up to 1,000). It does not name any sibling, but filter_csv_rows/sort_csv_rows/inspect_csv are clearly distinct operations, so ambiguity risk is low.
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 phrase 'existing cells only' implicitly scopes the tool against row/column insertion, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated error behavior for out-of-range coordinates.
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.