Read cell values, text, formulas, and optional styles from an XLSX range to inspect or extract spreadsheet data for analysis and review.
Read cell values, text, formulas, and optional styles from an XLSX range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path or path relative to the server working directory | |
| range | Yes | ||
| sheet | Yes | ||
| includeStyles | 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the useful nuance that raw formulas and optionally styles are returned, but says nothing about pagination, large-range limits, or error behavior on missing sheets/ranges.
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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 convey return contents, and it does list values, text, formulas, and optional styles. Combined with annotations that fully describe the safety profile, this is largely sufficient, though it omits any note on range size or missing-sheet failure behavior.
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 25%: only 'path' is documented, while 'sheet', 'range', and 'includeStyles' carry no descriptions. The description's mention of 'optional styles' loosely maps to includeStyles (default false) and 'range' implies an A1-style reference, but it does not explain sheet naming or range syntax beyond what the pattern already enforces.
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 (Read) and resource (XLSX range) and enumerates what is retrieved: cell values, text, formulas, and optional styles. This is clearly distinguishable from write-side siblings like excel_write_range and excel_set_formulas, though it never names them explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives, despite rich siblings such as excel_query_dataset, excel_inspect_workbook, and excel_analyze_dataset that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer that this is the low-level raw-cell read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.