lsth-mcp

excel_write

Exports data tables to Excel files, automatically adding a draft banner to the first row.

Instructions

Xuất bảng ra Excel. Mặc định đóng dấu 'BẢN NHÁP DO MÁY DỰNG' ở dòng đầu.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "excel_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	Yes
`rows`	Yes
`server`	No	gateway
`dry_run`	No
`sheet_name`	No	Data
`draft_banner`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default draft banner behavior but fails to mention whether files are overwritten, how errors are handled, or what the return value looks like. For a write operation, this is incomplete.

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 a single concise sentence in Vietnamese, easy to parse and free of unnecessary detail. It is efficient but very short, so it does not waste words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 6 parameters, 2 required, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the expected structure of rows, the meaning of path, or the effect of dry_run, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters. It only alludes to the draft banner default without naming draft_banner, and provides no meaning for path, rows, server, dry_run, or sheet_name.

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 exports a table to Excel and mentions a default draft stamp, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like csv_write or json_write, which also write data files, so it lacks sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as csv_write or json_write. It does not mention exclusions, conditions, or contexts that would help an agent decide between them.

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

Deploy Server