Create a new XLSX workbook with one or more worksheets and tabular data, including optional headers, auto filters, frozen rows, and custom column widths.
Create a new XLSX workbook with one or more worksheets and tabular data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path or path relative to the server working directory | |
| sheets | Yes | ||
| creator | No | ||
| overwrite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It never says what is destroyed (an existing file at the target path when overwrite is set), what happens when overwrite is left at its default false, or whether the call is idempotent, all of which matter for a write tool that can overwrite files.
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 wasted words. It is efficient, but the terseness is also the source of the definition's gaps rather than a deliberate trimming of redundant detail.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does not. For a destructive write tool with four parameters at 25% schema coverage and rich nested sheet options, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call it confidently.
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 only 25% – just the path parameter is documented. The description's phrase 'one or more worksheets and tabular data' barely gestures at the sheets array and says nothing about creator, overwrite, or the per-sheet options (headerRow, autoFilter, freezeRows, columnWidths) that are entirely undocumented in both places. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new XLSX workbook') plus the scope ('one or more worksheets and tabular data'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings that also create files (word_create_document, powerpoint_create_presentation) or from excel_write_range, which also writes spreadsheet data.
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 indication of when to use this versus excel_write_range, excel_native_batch, or the other create_* siblings. Critically, there is no guidance on the overwrite flag and whether an existing file at the path is replaced or the call fails, which is the main decision an agent faces here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.