Excel MCP Server

Create table

create_table

Convert a range with a header row into an Excel table, with options for naming, styling, and striped rows.

Instructions

Turn a range with a header row of unique text labels into an Excel table.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Table name, unique in the workbook. Default: TableN.
`path`	Yes	Path to an .xlsx, .xlsm, .xltx or .xltm file. Relative paths are resolved in the server's workbook directory when one is configured; otherwise use an absolute path.
`range`	Yes	Range including the header row, e.g. 'A1:D20'.
`sheet`	Yes	Worksheet name, e.g. 'Sheet1'.
`style`	No	Excel table style, e.g. 'TableStyleMedium9'.	TableStyleMedium9
`striped_rows`	No	Shade alternate rows.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedv1.1.1Sep 29, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / data_range

Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Data Range",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / filepath

Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Filepath",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / name

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Table name, unique in the workbook. Default: TableN.",
+  "title": "Name"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Path to an .xlsx, .xlsm, .xltx or .xltm file. Relative paths are resolved in the server's workbook directory when one is configured; otherwise use an absolute path.",
+  "title": "Path",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / range

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Range including the header row, e.g. 'A1:D20'.",
+  "title": "Range",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / sheet

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Worksheet name, e.g. 'Sheet1'.",
+  "title": "Sheet",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / sheet_name

Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Sheet Name",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / striped_rows

Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Shade alternate rows.",
+  "title": "Striped Rows",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / style

Added value: +{
+  "default": "TableStyleMedium9",
+  "description": "Excel table style, e.g. 'TableStyleMedium9'.",
+  "title": "Style",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / table_name

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Table Name"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / table_style

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "TableStyleMedium9",
-  "title": "Table Style",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "filepath",
-  "sheet_name",
-  "data_range"
-]New value: +[
+  "path",
+  "sheet",
+  "range"
+]

First observedv1.0.0Aug 15, 2025

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful precondition about unique text headers, but says nothing about what happens on failure, whether an existing table name collides, or that the workbook file must already exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the key constraint placed immediately after the action. It is appropriately sized, though it is minimal enough that there is nothing to evaluate in terms of internal structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all six parameters are documented in the schema. However, for a 6-parameter mutating tool operating on files, the description omits prerequisites (workbook already existing) and failure behavior, leaving it only minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the range/header-row and unique table-name semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes the header-row aspect of range and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Turn a range ... into an Excel table') with the key precondition that the range has a header row of unique text labels. It is clear on its own, but never distinguishes itself from the sibling create_summary_table, so an agent must infer the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a precondition (header row of unique text labels) but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. With create_summary_table in the sibling set, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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