Excel MCP Server

Delete chart

delete_chart

Destructive

Remove a chart from an Excel worksheet while keeping its source data intact. Specify the workbook path, sheet, and chart name to delete only the chart.

Instructions

Remove a chart; its data stays.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "sheet": "<sheet>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name from describe_sheet.
`path`	Yes
`sheet`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the chart's underlying data survives — but says nothing about irreversibility, error behavior for a missing chart, or required permissions.

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 clause with zero filler; the consequence of the delete is stated immediately. It leans toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but as structure it is efficient.

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?

For a destructive 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and undocumented `path`/`sheet`, the definition is only minimally complete. It conveys the key effect but omits parameter expectations and failure modes an agent would need.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With only 33% schema description coverage, the schema documents just the `name` parameter (pointing to describe_sheet) while `path` and `sheet` are bare. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Remove a chart") and scopes the effect ("its data stays"), which separates it from the broader delete_sheet / delete_rows_or_columns siblings. It is clear, though it never names an alternative to route between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of sibling tools such as delete_sheet or create_chart. The agent must infer the context of use entirely from the name.

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