Add a parameter to the workbook.
Add a parameter to the workbook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| alias | No | ||
| datatype | No | real | |
| max_value | No | ||
| min_value | No | ||
| domain_type | No | range | |
| granularity | No | ||
| default_value | No | 0 | |
| internal_name | No | ||
| allowed_values | No | ||
| default_format | No | ||
| allowed_aliases | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.28.0Input schema / properties / aliasAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Alias",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / allowed_aliasesAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Allowed Aliases"
+}Input schema / properties / internal_nameAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Internal Name",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a persistent mutation of the workbook, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes (e.g., duplicate parameter name), what happens to defaults, or whether the change is saved or only staged in memory.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but for a 12-parameter mutation tool this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure an agent can act on.
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 an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the definition omits everything else needed for a complex 12-parameter tool with no annotations: parameter meanings, write semantics, and usage context. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Non-obvious fields like domain_type ('range'), granularity, allowed_values, allowed_aliases, and internal_name are left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot populate them meaningfully.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Add a parameter to the workbook'), so an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. However, it offers no differentiation from structurally similar siblings such as add_calculated_field, add_group, or add_set, which all add objects to a workbook.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other 'add_*' siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., must a workbook be open or uploaded first?), and no caveats. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.