Skip to main content
Glama
Hcshenziyang

excel-tools-mcp

by Hcshenziyang
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: inspection, structure profiling, and reading with merged cell handling. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent 'excel_verb_noun' pattern (inspect, profile_structure, read_range_normalized), making the intent clear.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the set is small but focused. It covers essential read/inspect operations, though a few more tools for writing or editing would be more comprehensive.

    Completeness2/5

    The set is missing any write or modification capabilities (create, update, delete), which are common in Excel workflows. Significant gaps remain.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions analyzing data types and merge status but omits important traits such as whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, error conditions, or if it modifies the file. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

    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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and earns its place.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    The description provides the essential purpose but lacks context on the return value format (even though an output schema exists, the description could hint at what 'structural signature' entails). Given the presence of sibling tools and an output schema, the description is minimally complete but could be more informative.

    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?

    The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (file_path, sheet, max_cols_to_scan, max_rows_to_scan), so schema description coverage is effectively high. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate or add value beyond the schema.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing the structural signature of a worksheet, including data types and merge status. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('worksheet structure signature'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like excel_inspect or excel_read_range_normalized.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent receives no guidance on context of use.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    The description discloses two key behaviors: it reads data and virtually backfills merged cells, and it does not modify the source file. With no annotations, this provides minimal behavioral context. However, it omits details like handling of errors, empty ranges, or the structure of returned data.

    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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool has five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks detail on parameter usage, output format, and edge cases. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but behavioral context remains incomplete.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    The tool description does not mention any parameters, even though the input schema has five properties. Schema description coverage is 0% as per context, meaning the description should compensate but does not. The schema itself has parameter descriptions in Chinese, but the tool description adds no value beyond that.

    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 reads a specified area from an Excel file and virtually backfills merged cells without modifying the source. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools (excel_inspect, excel_profile_structure) which focus on structure/profile rather than data reading.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist but there is no mention of trade-offs or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool inspects basic info but does not explicitly declare it is read-only or describe any side effects. The behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

    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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. Every part is necessary.

    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?

    Given the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not mention edge cases or output format, but with the output schema present, it is sufficiently complete.

    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?

    The schema provides a description for file_path, but overall schema description coverage is 0% (likely due to nested defs not counted). The description adds value by specifying what information is retrieved (sheets, rows, columns) beyond the parameter schema.

    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 inspects basic Excel file information including number of sheets and rows/columns. It distinguishes from sibling tools like excel_profile_structure and excel_read_range_normalized, which likely have different scopes.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies use for initial overview of Excel files but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or when to use alternatives. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

excel_tools_mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

excel_tools_mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Hcshenziyang/excel_tools_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server