WPS Office MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wps_excel_read_range

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read cell data from a specified Excel range in the active WPS Spreadsheet and return it as a two-dimensional array, with options to include headers or select a specific sheet.

Instructions

读取Excel指定范围的单元格数据，返回二维数组格式的数据。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "range": "<range>"
    },
    "name": "wps_excel_read_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`range`	Yes	要读取的范围，如 A1:C10、B2:D5
`sheet`	No	工作表名称，不填则使用当前活动工作表
`include_header`	No	是否将第一行作为表头返回，默认false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0-hardened.1Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the return format as a 2D array, but it does not clarify whether values or formulas are returned, or how include_header affects the output beyond what the schema states.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and output format. It contains no filler or redundant information, though it could add slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for a simple read operation and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema and no mention of whether returned values are computed values or formulas, or how empty cells are handled. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between this and formula-related siblings.

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 fully documents the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about range syntax, sheet selection, or header behavior beyond what is already in the input schema.

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 description clearly states the tool reads a specified Excel range and returns data in 2D array format. This distinguishes it from single-cell or formula-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of wps_excel_get_cell_value, wps_excel_get_formula, or wps_excel_get_selection. The intended usage is only implied by the name and description.

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