Inspect Excel workbook structure before processing: list sheets, dimensions, merged cells, hidden rows/columns, and file size in one call.
查看 Excel 工作簿结构：工作表清单、每张表的行列数、合并单元格数、隐藏行列数、内嵌图片数与文件大小。
用途：开始处理任何 Excel 文件前先调用这个，用一次调用摸清结构， 避免为了知道有哪些表就把整张表读进上下文。
返回：文件路径、大小、活动表名、每个工作表的 name/rows/columns/merged_cells/hidden_rows/hidden_columns。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates the return payload (file path, size, active sheet, per-sheet metrics) and explains that the tool avoids loading the full sheet into context, implying a lightweight metadata-only operation. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but the wording strongly implies it.
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 compact and well-organized: the first sentence lists the concrete outputs, and the second section adds usage rationale and return fields. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple one-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, when to call it, and what it returns. It omits error/precondition details, but these are not critical for such a straightforward informational tool.
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 only parameter, file_path, has no schema description and the description does not elaborate on its expected format or constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory and the description references 'Excel 文件', providing some context, but with 0% schema coverage the description should have compensated more explicitly.
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 the tool's function: inspect an Excel workbook's structure, listing sheets, row/column counts, merged cells, hidden rows/columns, images, and file size. This is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool sheet_profile, which may provide overlapping per-sheet structural information.
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 explicitly advises calling this tool before processing any Excel file, giving a clear when-to-use instruction. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.