Extract all cell text from a table by its zero-based index and return it as a 2D array for structured processing.
Read all cell texts of a table as a 2D array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | No | Target document ID from list_documents. Optional when only one document is connected. | |
| tableIndex | Yes | Zero-based table index. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation and 'as a 2D array' usefully discloses the return shape given the absence of an output schema, but nothing is said about text-only extraction (formatting/merges lost), behavior on out-of-range tableIndex, or permission requirements.
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 zero filler; the operation and its return shape are stated immediately.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: the 2D-array-of-texts result shape. Only the lack of edge-case behavior (invalid index, missing document) keeps it from being fully complete.
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%, with clear docs on documentId sourcing and zero-based tableIndex, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond implying the whole table is returned rather than a slice.
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?
Specific verb ('Read') plus specific resource ('all cell texts of a table') and it even declares the return shape ('2D array'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as read_range or set_table_cells, so an agent must infer which table-reading tool applies in a mixed Word/Excel environment.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., read_range for Excel ranges or set_table_cells for writing). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read' and the word 'table'; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.