Skip to main content
Glama
WilliamSmithEdward

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

by WilliamSmithEdward
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List forms

xlide_list_forms
Read-onlyIdempotent

List UserForms in Office files or forms and reports in Access databases, including control counts, sections, and offset paging.

Instructions

Lists the UserForms in an Office file, or the forms and reports in an Access database, with each one's control count and, for Access, the sections a control can go in. A design's code is a module of the same name, read with xlide_read_module. An unreadable report collection is a failure, not an empty list. An unreadable design's sections are marked unknown with sections_error. Use offset and next_offset to read large form lists in pages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNoSkip this many forms before a page.
file_pathYesAbsolute path to the Office file.
max_resultsNoReturn at most this many forms.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_results
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 300,
+  "description": "Return at most this many forms.",
+  "maximum": 300,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "title": "Max Results",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Skip this many forms before a page.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "title": "Offset",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: an unreadable report collection is treated as a failure rather than an empty list, and unreadable designs are marked unknown via sections_error. This discloses error-handling semantics that structured fields do not.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return content, followed by failure semantics and pagination. Efficient and each sentence adds information, though slightly dense with the Access-specific caveats grouped mid-paragraph.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still fills the important gaps: error-vs-empty distinction, sections_error signaling, and pagination guidance, making it adequate for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents file_path, offset, and max_results; baseline 3 applies. The description adds pagination intent (using offset and next_offset) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (UserForms / Access forms and reports), and specifies what is returned (control count, sections). It clearly differentiates from sibling list tools like xlide_list_sheets and xlide_list_modules by naming the form/report scope.

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?

Points to the alternative for reading a design's code (xlide_read_module) and explains the pagination workflow with offset/next_offset. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over xlide_read_form or other form siblings, but the context is clearly implied by the file-scoped listing purpose.

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