Write a 2D array of values into a specific Excel sheet, targeting a file path and sheet name, with an optional start cell for placement.
Write data to an Excel sheet.
Args: path: Path to the .xlsx file sheet_name: Target sheet name data: 2D array of values to write start_cell: Starting cell (e.g., 'A1')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| sheet_name | Yes | ||
| start_cell | No | A1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'write data' without explaining whether it overwrites existing cells, requires an existing sheet, creates the file if absent, or affects formulas/formatting. This leaves critical side effects unspecified.
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-structured: one purpose sentence followed by a terse, readable Args block. Every line adds value and there is no redundant or filler text.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as overwrite behavior, required file/sheet existence, return values, and error conditions. It gives parameter identity but not enough behavioral context for safe, correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: 'Path to the .xlsx file', 'Target sheet name', '2D array of values to write', and 'Starting cell (e.g., 'A1')'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though 'values' could be more precise about supported types.
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 action ('Write data to an Excel sheet') with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_excel_workbook or add_excel_formula, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that create_excel_workbook should be used for new files or add_excel_formula for formula insertion. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.