xlide-excel-word-powerpoint-access-office-vba-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Edit form design

xlide_edit_form

DestructiveIdempotent

Edit a form's design by adding or removing controls and setting their properties, then save the file. Works for UserForms and Access forms, with geometry in points or twips.

Instructions

Changes one form's design and saves the file: add a control, remove one, or set a property on one. Geometry is in points for a UserForm and twips for an Access design. Setting a property to null clears it, putting the control back at its default. Removing a container takes its children with it, so ask the user first. Adding a control does not write its event procedure; do that with xlide_write_module on the form's code module.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No	For add_control.
`left`	No	For add_control.
`width`	No	0 uses the type's default.
`action`	Yes	'add_control', 'remove_control' or 'set_property'.
`height`	No	0 uses the type's default.
`caption`	No	For add_control on an Access design: the control's caption.
`section`	No	For add_control on an Access design: the band to put it in, such as Detail, PageHeaderSection or PageFooterSection. xlide_list_forms names the ones a design has. Ignored for a UserForm, which has no bands.
`container`	No	For add_control: the Frame or page to put it in.
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the Office file.
`form_name`	Yes	Form to change.
`control_name`	Yes	The control to add, remove or change.
`control_type`	No	For add_control: Label, TextBox, CommandButton, CheckBox, OptionButton, ComboBox, ListBox, Frame, MultiPage, Image, SpinButton and the rest.
`property_name`	No	For set_property: the property to set.
`property_value`	No	For set_property. null clears it to the default.
`allow_protected`	No	Ask the user first.
`allow_invalidate_signature`	No	Ask the user first.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses concrete destructive behavior: 'Removing a container takes its children with it'. It also reveals that setting a property to null resets the control to default, and that adding a control does not write its event procedure. These details materially explain side effects not captured in annotations.

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 5 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and immediately followed by high-value clarifications (units, null, cascade, event procedures). Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details already present.

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 16 parameters and a destructive annotation, the description covers the main risk points (container removal, null semantics, event procedure omission) and clarifies units. An output schema is present, so return values are already documented. The description is sufficient for correct invocation without additional exploration.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes all 16 parameters individually. The description adds cross-cutting semantics: unit types (points vs twips) for geometry parameters, the null-clears-default behavior for property_value, and the container-cascade note affecting control_name and action. This meaningfully supplements the parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Changes one form's design and saves the file' and enumerates three precise operations (add a control, remove one, set a property). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like xlide_read_form (read-only) and xlide_manage_form (likely broader management), and the scope is explicit ('one form').

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 includes a clear alternative for event procedures ('do that with xlide_write_module on the form's code module') and instructs to ask the user before removing a container. It also clarifies unit differences (points vs twips) which guide input. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus other edit-like siblings (e.g., xlide_manage_form), leaving some inference to the agent.

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

Deploy Server