Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Excel MCP Cleyrop

Excel MCP Cleyrop

by MartinCley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

cleyrop_diagnose

Diagnose Cleyrop authentication and API access without exposing secrets. Use when a deposit fails to verify token presence, validity, and network connectivity, returning real auth mode and resolved API URL.

Instructions

Diagnostique la connexion Cleyrop (auth + accès API), sans exposer de secret.

À utiliser quand un dépôt échoue. Renvoie le mode d'URL et d'auth réellement vus par le serveur (token présent ? longueur ? secret ?), l'URL d'API résolue, et le résultat d'un appel réel me() qui distingue : token absent (variable non injectée -> redéployer), token invalide (401), réseau injoignable, ou OK avec l'identité authentifiée.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cleyrop_diagnose"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools