read_sheetRead an .xlsx or .csv file from the workspace and retrieve its rows as JSON. Use offset and max_rows to paginate results, optionally specifying a sheet name for XLSX files.
Lê uma planilha .xlsx ou .csv do workspace e retorna as linhas como JSON. Paginação por offset/max_rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| sheet | No | Nome da aba (XLSX); padrão: a primeira | |
| offset | No | ||
| max_rows | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output as JSON and pagination via offset/max_rows, but it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., file not found, invalid sheet), handling of large files, or whether the operation is read-only. The safety profile is unstated, which is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then mention pagination. There is no wasted text, and the information is presented efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The description is adequate for basic use but lacks details on error handling, default sheet selection, and the exact JSON structure. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify more behavioral aspects, such as what happens if the sheet is missing or how offset/max_rows interact. It covers the essentials but leaves edge cases unexplained.
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?
The schema description coverage is low (25%), with only the 'sheet' parameter described. The description adds meaning by explaining pagination through offset and max_rows, which partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions for those parameters. However, it does not clarify the path parameter format or any constraints beyond what the schema provides, leaving some parameters underdocumented.
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?
The description clearly states it reads .xlsx/.csv spreadsheets from the workspace and returns rows as JSON, which is specific and distinguishes it from generic file readers like read_file or format-specific readers like read_docx and read_pdf. The verb 'Lê' (reads) and the resource (spreadsheet) are explicit.
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 description implies usage for spreadsheet files by specifying formats, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions pagination, which is a usage detail, but lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as for non-tabular files. Sibling names hint at alternatives, but the description does not directly reference them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.