Skip to main content
Glama
KitchenSink4AI

io.github.nometalalchemist/kitchensink4xl

by KitchenSink4AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

copy_range

Copy a range to a destination in an Excel workbook, choosing to transfer values, formulas, or formats. Overlapping ranges are safe because the source is buffered, and relative references shift correctly.

Instructions

Copy a source rectangle to a destination anchor (location objects, may name different sheets). what is 'all', 'values', 'formulas', or 'formats'. The destination is overwritten; the source is buffered first, so an overlapping paste is safe. Relative refs in copied formulas shift by the paste offset like an Excel copy unless adjust_formulas is false; absolute ($) anchors stay put. A hazardous workbook refuses unless allow_loss is true. Auto-backup to .ks4xl-backups; atomic verified save. Refuses while open in Excel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
destYesWhere the result lands (its top-left cell).
pathYes
whatNoall
sheetNo
backupNo
sourceYesThe range to read from.
allow_lossNo
verify_comNo
adjust_formulasNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / dest / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / dest / description
      Added value: +"Where the result lands (its top-left cell)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / source / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Added value: +"The range to read from."
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the destination is overwritten, the source is buffered for safe overlap, formula references shift like Excel, allow_loss gates hazardous workbooks, backups are auto-created, saving is atomic/verified, and the operation refuses while the workbook is open in Excel. This all aligns with readOnlyHint=false; no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and dense with high-value behavioral details; there is no filler. The minor grammatical break after the first sentence and the slightly crowded list of safety caveats keep it from being perfectly polished, but it remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a mutating 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the most consequential behaviors comprehensively. However, it still leaves `sheet`, `verify_com`, and the backup-disable path under-specified, and it does not describe the return shape, so the definition is not fully complete on its own.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 22%, so the description compensates meaningfully by explaining the `what` values, `adjust_formulas` behavior, `allow_loss` gating, backup/atomic-save behavior, and source/dest as location objects that may name different sheets. It leaves some parameters like `sheet`, `verify_com`, and the exact semantics of `backup` only partially explained, so it is not fully compensating.

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 names a specific operation ('Copy a source rectangle to a destination anchor') and explicitly lists the optional content values ('all', 'values', 'formulas', 'formats'). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling operations like move_range or write_range, even without opening the schema.

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?

It provides strong situational context: overlapping paste is safe, formulas adjust unless disabled, hazardous workbooks require allow_loss, and the tool refuses while Excel has the file open. However, it never explicitly directs the agent to prefer this over siblings like move_range or clear_range, so the when-to-use guidance remains mostly implied.

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

Install Server

Other Tools