Inspect Excel workbook metadata, worksheets, dimensions, and formulas, and read sample rows to review and analyze spreadsheet contents before editing.
Inspect workbook metadata, worksheets, dimensions, formulas, and sample rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path or path relative to the server working directory | |
| sampleRows | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds value by naming what the inspection surfaces (formulas, dimensions, sample rows), which is a behavioral/return-content claim, but it does not describe size limits, performance, or how much data is returned.
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 dense sentence with no filler, and the key content categories are front-loaded after the verb. It loses a point only because the compact list form leaves out routing and parameter cues that would have been worth the space.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does enumerate the inspection coverage (metadata, worksheets, dimensions, formulas, sample rows). The remaining gap is that return format and the effect of sampleRows on output are not described, which leaves the agent guessing at the response shape.
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 coverage is 50%: the required 'path' parameter is documented in the schema, while 'sampleRows' has only default/min/max bounds and no prose. The description's mention of 'sample rows' gives that parameter meaning by implication, which is modest compensation, but the max of 100 and behavior at 0 are left unexplained.
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 (inspect) and resource (workbook) and enumerates the aspects inspected: metadata, worksheets, dimensions, formulas, sample rows. This distinguishes it well from sibling inspect tools for other formats, though it does not explicitly contrast with overlapping excel siblings such as excel_read_range or excel_analyze_dataset.
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 when-to-use guidance at all. Given siblings like excel_read_range, excel_analyze_dataset, and excel_query_dataset, an agent has no stated rule for choosing inspection over reading or analyzing data, nor any prerequisite or sequencing hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.