Skip to main content
Glama
KitchenSink4AI

io.github.nometalalchemist/kitchensink4xl

by KitchenSink4AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Manage Hyperlink

manage_hyperlink
Destructive

Add, remove, or list cell hyperlinks in Excel workbooks, including HYPERLINK() formulas, with atomic saves and backup safety.

Instructions

Manage cell hyperlinks. action is add (location, target as a URL or an in-workbook 'Sheet!A1' reference, optional display text and tooltip), remove (location), or list (read-only). On add, display replaces the cell's value; with no display an empty cell shows the target. remove strips only the link: the cell's text and style stay. On list it surfaces both real cell hyperlinks and HYPERLINK() formula links so an audit sees every kind. For the mutating actions: a hazardous workbook refuses unless allow_loss is true; auto-backup to prev/anchor slots in .ks4xl-backups; atomic verified save. Refuses while open in Excel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
sheetNo
actionYes
backupNo
targetNo
displayNo
tooltipNo
locationNo
allow_lossNo
verify_comNo

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. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / location / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / location / title
      Removed value: -"Location"
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further: it discloses that mutating actions refuse on hazardous workbooks unless allow_loss=true, auto-backup to prev/anchor slots, perform atomic verified saves, and refuse while the file is open in Excel. It also clarifies that 'remove' only strips the link, preserving text and style. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 densely packed but every sentence earns its place. It opens with purpose, then systematically covers each action's behavior, safety, backup, and locking constraints. No redundancy or filler; it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the exact semantics for each action, side effects, safety mechanisms, backup behavior, and even what the list action returns (both real and formula hyperlinks). An agent has enough to call it correctly without needing to inspect schemas further.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It successfully explains core parameters: action (add/remove/list), location (cell reference), target (URL or 'Sheet!A1'), display (replaces cell value), tooltip, and allow_loss (hazardous refusal). However, it leaves path, sheet, backup, and verify_com unexplained. It covers the most important ones but misses several, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Manage cell hyperlinks' and immediately enumerates three concrete actions (add, remove, list) with precise semantics for each. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_cell or write_range by focusing exclusively on hyperlink behavior. The phrasing is specific and action-oriented.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

While the description clearly conveys when to use the tool (to manage hyperlinks) and gives behavioral details for each action, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for simple cell value writes). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools