Get the value from a specified Excel cell by supplying worksheet name, row, and column numbers.
获取Excel指定单元格的值。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| col | Yes | 列号（从1开始） | |
| row | Yes | 行号（从1开始） | |
| sheet | Yes | 工作表名称 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-hardened.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as the dependence on the active workbook or the return type. No contradiction with annotations, but the description contributes nothing extra to behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so minimal that it omits important context, which affects completeness rather than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple, the description is incomplete given the many siblings. It fails to specify that the tool operates on the active workbook, does not describe the return value format (especially with no output schema), and does not distinguish it from wps_get_cell_value. An agent could easily choose the wrong tool or call it incorrectly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (sheet, row, col) with 100% coverage. The description itself does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Per calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb '获取' (get) and the resource 'Excel指定单元格的值' (value of a specified cell in Excel), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool wps_get_cell_value, which appears to serve a similar purpose, and it does not clarify that it operates on the active workbook. This ambiguity prevents a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it operates on the active workbook, nor does it compare with wps_get_cell_value or wps_excel_read_range. The description implies usage for fetching a single cell value but offers no exclusions or context for selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.