Skip to main content
Glama
MartinCley

Excel MCP Cleyrop

by MartinCley
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: diagnose troubleshoots connections, list_projects retrieves project identifiers, generate_excel creates the file, and get_excel_schema provides data structure. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Naming is inconsistent: two tools use a 'cleyrop_' prefix while two use a direct verb_noun pattern (generate_excel, get_excel_schema). While readable, the lack of a uniform convention causes mild confusion.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 4 tools, the set is on the smaller side but well-scoped for the core task of generating Excel files. It covers necessary utility actions without being overly sparse.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the main workflow: diagnose, list projects, generate, and schema retrieval. Minor gaps like lacking a tool to list generated files or manage projects are acceptable given the focused purpose of Excel generation.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 9 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    The description covers key behaviors: file construction, theme application, and two delivery modes with conditions (project vs. download). It also mentions authentication requirements (service account). Without annotations, it provides good transparency but could mention potential side effects or limits.

    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 well-structured with bullet points and sections, front-loading the purpose and then detailing delivery modes. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though slightly verbose.

    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 complex spec and no output schema, the description could elaborate more on the output format (e.g., structure of the download link and blob). It adequately covers delivery modes and auth, but gaps in output details reduce completeness.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is high (75%), and the schema already thoroughly documents parameters and nested objects like Workbookspec. The description adds little beyond repeating some delivery details, so it adds limited value over the 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 generates an Excel workbook (.xlsx) and delivers it to the user, specifying two distinct delivery methods (project deposit or download link). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_excel_schema' and 'cleyrop_list_projects' by focusing on generation and delivery.

    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?

    The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to generate Excel files) and outlines prerequisites like service account permissions for project deposit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer direct alternatives beyond the sibling tools listed.

    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 provided. Description implies read-only (list) but doesn't explicitly state safety or side effects. Adequate for a simple list operation.

    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?

    Two sentences with no waste; front-loaded with action and purpose. Highly efficient.

    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?

    Complete for a parameterless list tool: mentions fields returned, has output schema, ties to sibling tool. No gaps.

    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?

    No parameters exist (baseline 4). Description adds meaning by listing returned fields and linking to another tool's usage.

    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 lists Cleyrop projects and returns fields (id, name, slug). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings but ties usage to another tool.

    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?

    Explicitly states that the tool is useful for retrieving project id/slug to use as a parameter in 'generate_excel', providing clear when-to-use context.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Discloses that it does not expose secrets ('sans exposer de secret') and describes the output in detail (URL mode, auth mode, token presence, me() result). No side effects mentioned, but typical diagnostic tool is read-only.

    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 and well-structured, starting with purpose, then usage, then detailed output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

    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?

    Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains purpose, when to use, exact output (URL, auth, token status, me() result with four outcomes), and safety (no secrets). Suitable for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

    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?

    No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter information since none are needed; baseline of 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 clearly states the tool diagnoses Cleyrop connection (auth + API access) without exposing secrets. It specifies what is returned and differentiates from siblings (list projects, generate excel, get excel schema) by being a diagnostic tool.

    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?

    The description explicitly states 'À utiliser quand un dépôt échoue' (use when a deposit fails), providing clear context. It does not give exclusions but sufficiently guides when to use.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It correctly describes the return as a JSON Schema with details. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only schema getter, no additional disclosure is necessary.

    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?

    Two concise sentences: first states the primary action, second lists what the schema covers. No unnecessary 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 and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what the schema describes, leaving detailed structure to the output schema.

    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?

    No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

    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 it returns the complete JSON Schema for generate_excel's specification, specifying the resource (JSON Schema) and its purpose (expected by generate_excel). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool generate_excel.

    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?

    Implies usage context: use before calling generate_excel to understand input format. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but clear enough for a simple schema retrieval tool.

    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-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Excel-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/MartinCley/Excel-MCP'

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