Add a threaded comment to a specific cell in an open workbook so reviewers can discuss values and formulas in context, visible live on screen.
Add a threaded comment to a cell.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Comment text. | |
| workbookId | No | Target workbook ID from list_workbooks. Optional when only one workbook is connected. | |
| cellAddress | Yes | Cell reference including sheet, e.g. "Sheet1!A1". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does 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 only that a comment is created; it says nothing about permissions, whether an existing thread on the cell is reused or a new thread is started, or what the call returns.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that it omits any routing or behavioral context the reader would need.
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?
For a simple three-parameter create operation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is adequate to invoke the tool. It is incomplete for anything beyond invocation, since it says nothing about threading behavior or the response.
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 100%, so all three parameters (text, workbookId, cellAddress) are already documented, including the optional-workbook rule. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a threaded comment to a cell'), and 'threaded' distinguishes it from a plain note. It does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling reply_to_comment, which also 'adds' to a thread, so it falls short of a 5.
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 alternatives. With reply_to_comment, resolve_comment, and read_threaded_comments in the sibling set, the agent must infer that this creates a new thread rather than replying to one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.