Inspect XLSX, DOCX, or PPTX files to return a semantic summary, enabling quick review of content and structure before editing or analysis.
Inspect an XLSX, DOCX, or PPTX file and return a semantic summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path or path relative to the server working directory | |
| sampleLimit | 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a 'semantic summary' for three format types, but says nothing about inspection depth, cost, or how sampleLimit affects behavior.
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 wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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 carries the burden of explaining what a 'semantic summary' contains, which it does not. Combined with the undocumented sampleLimit parameter, an agent lacks the detail needed to call this tool with confidence.
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 50%: 'path' is documented in the schema but 'sampleLimit' (default 20, max 500) is undocumented in both the schema and the description. Its meaning and effect on the returned summary are unclear, and the description does not compensate for this 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 (Inspect), the resource (XLSX, DOCX, PPTX file), and the return (semantic summary). However, it does not differentiate itself from the format-specific siblings excel_inspect_workbook, word_inspect_document, and powerpoint_inspect_presentation, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would choose the generic tool over a format-scoped one.
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 and no mention of alternatives. Given several sibling tools that also inspect documents, the description should say when this cross-format inspector is preferable, but it offers nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.