Excel Analytics MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'return results', which hints at a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or handles errors. For a tool that runs other tools, this lack of detail on behavior is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and parameter format. There is no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (running other tools with parameters), the lack of annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter format, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects or error handling. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should do more to guide usage and transparency.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'params should be a JSON string of the parameters to pass.' This clarifies the format and purpose of the 'params' parameter, which the schema only labels as 'Params' with a default. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, such as what 'tool_id' represents or example usage.

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's purpose: 'Run a tool with given parameters and return results.' This specifies the verb ('Run') and resource ('a tool'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_tool' or 'edit_tool', which might also involve tool operations, so it's not fully differentiated.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from direct tool invocation or other sibling tools like 'query' or 'save_analysis'. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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