ragic-mcp

ragic_list_sheets

List all sheets the API key can see, grouped by tab in a tree. Use this as the first call to find a sheet by its Chinese name, then reference its path and sheet index for subsequent tools.

Instructions

List every sheet the configured API key can see, grouped by tab.

Returns a tree: account -> tabs (path like "/sales") -> sheets (key = sheet_index, value = {name, type, seq}). Use this as the FIRST call when the user asks about a sheet by Chinese name — find it in the tree, then use the matching path & sheet_index for subsequent tools.

No arguments. The user doesn't need to paste a URL anymore.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ragic_list_sheets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly describes the output and that no arguments are needed. It implies a read-only operation (listing) but does not explicitly state no side effects. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about being safe/idempotent.

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 concise: three sentences, each purposeful. First sentence states the main action, second details output format, third gives usage instructions. No redundancy or extra words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the output structure, and how to use it in a workflow. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description correctly notes 'No arguments,' so no additional parameter info is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List every sheet the configured API key can see, grouped by tab.' It specifies the output structure (tree: account -> tabs -> sheets) and differentiates from siblings by indicating it's the first call to find a sheet by Chinese name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use this as the FIRST call when the user asks about a sheet by Chinese name — find it in the tree, then use the matching path & sheet_index for subsequent tools.' This provides clear when-to-use and what-to-do-next guidance. Also states 'No arguments. The user doesn't need to paste a URL anymore.'

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

Deploy Server