Copilot Desktop MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create Excel

create_excel

Create native Excel workbooks (.xlsx) from named sheet data, with the first row automatically formatted as a bold header.

Instructions

Create a native Excel workbook (.xlsx). sheets is a dict mapping sheet names to lists of rows. First row is automatically formatted as a bold header.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "sheets": "<sheets>"
    },
    "name": "create_excel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`sheets`	Yes
`overwrite`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait (first row auto-formatted as a bold header) and implies a write of a new file, but says nothing about what happens when the target exists, how `overwrite` changes that, whether parent directories are created, or where `path` resolves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious structural fact. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the `sheets` shape is covered. What is missing is the overwrite/error behavior for an existing file, which matters for a tool that writes to disk with no annotations.

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 0% and `sheets` is a nested object, so the description's 'dict mapping sheet names to lists of rows' and header-row note add genuine meaning beyond the schema. However, `path` and especially `overwrite` receive no explanation, so a third of the parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a native Excel workbook (.xlsx)'), and the format qualifier separates it from the docx/pdf/pptx creation siblings. It stops short of any explicit contrast, but the resource and file extension are unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the sibling creators for other document formats. The only usage-adjacent content is the structural note on `sheets`, which is parameter semantics rather than tool selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server