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

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List project references

xlide_list_references

Read-onlyIdempotent

List VBA project type libraries to diagnose unresolved names, choose binding strategy, or fix machine-specific reference failures.

Instructions

Lists the type libraries a VBA project references: the name code uses to qualify them, the kind, and the registry or file path the project recorded. Call it when a name will not resolve, when deciding between early and late binding, or when code works on one machine and not another: a reference names a path and a version, so a project can be broken by the machine rather than by its own code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the Office file.

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by explaining that reference paths and versions can cause a project to break on another machine, which helps the agent interpret results without overstepping the annotation coverage.

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?

Two purposeful sentences front-load the core behavior and follow with high-value usage context. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, full annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool lists, why it matters, and when to call it. There are no meaningful gaps.

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?

The input schema already documents the single file_path parameter completely at 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level guidance, but none is needed beyond the schema's 'Absolute path to the Office file' definition.

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 states a precise action and resource: it lists the type libraries a VBA project references. It also clarifies the content of the listing—qualification name, kind, and registry/file path—making it distinct from siblings like xlide_list_projects or xlide_project_info.

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?

It gives concrete trigger scenarios: unresolved names, early-vs-late binding decisions, and machine-specific failures. It does not name an alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use case, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

Deploy Server