Set the visibility of a worksheet tab in a Tableau workbook by updating its window metadata. Specify the worksheet name and optionally choose to hide or unhide it.
Hide or unhide a worksheet tab by updating worksheet window metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hidden | No | ||
| worksheet_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 burden. It discloses the action (hide/unhide) and the metadata context, but does not mention if there are side effects (e.g., impacts on other sheets or workbook structure) or prerequisites (e.g., worksheet must exist).
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists but not described), the description is adequate but not thorough. It omits explanation of the output schema and potential constraints (e.g., cannot hide the only visible worksheet).
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'worksheet window metadata' without detailing the two parameters. The schema itself defines worksheet_name (string) and hidden (boolean with default true), but the description adds no additional meaning beyond that.
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 clearly states the tool hides or unhides a worksheet tab, specifying the verb (hide/unhide) and resource (worksheet tab). It distinguishes from siblings like add_worksheet or clone_worksheet by focusing on visibility rather than creation or duplication.
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. For example, when to use set_worksheet_hidden versus set_worksheet_caption or other worksheet configuration tools is not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.