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

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Conditional formatting

xlide_manage_conditional_format

DestructiveIdempotent

List, add, or clear Excel conditional formatting rules that paint cells according to their contents via cell comparisons, custom formulas, gradients, or data bars.

Instructions

Lists, adds or clears conditional formatting: the rules that colour cells by what is in them. rule='cell_is' with an operator and a value paints cells that compare true; rule='expression' takes a formula written for the top-left cell of the range and applied relatively, the way Excel's 'Use a formula' box works; rule='color_scale' and 'data_bar' are the gradient and in-cell bar. The paint itself is the fill and font arguments, which is what Excel calls a differential format.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bold`	No	Make matching cells bold.
`rule`	No	cell_is, expression, color_scale or data_bar.	cell_is
`sheet`	Yes	Worksheet name, matched without case.
`value`	No	For cell_is: the value compared against.
`action`	No	list, add or clear.	list
`offset`	No	For list: format ranges to skip.
`formula`	No	For expression: a formula for the range's top-left cell.
`operator`	No	For cell_is: greaterThan, between, etc.	greaterThan
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the Excel file.
`cell_range`	No	For add and clear: the range. Empty clears the whole sheet.
`fill_color`	No	Fill to paint matching cells, as hex.
`font_color`	No	Text colour for matching cells, as hex.
`max_results`	No	For list: most to return.
`other_value`	No	For cell_is with between: the second value.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.2Sep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / max_results

Added value: +{
+  "default": 300,
+  "description": "For list: most to return.",
+  "maximum": 300,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "title": "Max Results",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "For list: format ranges to skip.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "title": "Offset",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic meaning of the 'differential format' (fill/font as the paint) and how expression formulas are applied relatively, but never states what 'clear' destroys or that clearing is irreversible, which matters for a destructive mutation tool.

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 three sentences are dense but front-loaded, leading with the action set and rule modes before the paint detail. Some phrasing (the aside about Excel's 'Use a formula' box) is explanatory padding that could be trimmed, keeping it below a 5.

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?

For a 14-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema and destructive/idempotent annotations, the description covers the rule taxonomy and paint semantics well. It leaves the action (list/add/clear) contract and the destructive scope of 'clear' to the schema and annotations, so it is complete enough but not exhaustive.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond it: it explains that rule='expression' takes a formula written for the range's top-left cell and applied relatively, and that fill/font are Excel's differential format. It does not touch the non-rule params (offset, max_results, other_value), so it falls short of 5.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb set and resource ('Lists, adds or clears conditional formatting') and immediately disambiguates the concept ('the rules that colour cells by what is in them'), which separates it from static formatting siblings like xlide_format_cells. It does not name any sibling explicitly, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains what each rule mode means ('cell_is' compares true, 'expression' takes a relative formula, 'color_scale'/'data_bar' are gradients/bars), which helps an agent pick a rule, but that selection is already surfaced in the schema's rule description. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as xlide_format_cells, or when list vs add vs clear is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server