Excel MCP Server

Delete defined name

delete_defined_name

Destructive

Remove a defined name from an Excel workbook. Formulas using the deleted name will show #NAME? errors.

Instructions

Delete a defined name; formulas using it will show #NAME?.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_defined_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Letters, digits, underscores and periods, e.g. 'TaxRate'.
`path`	Yes
`sheet`	No	Scope sheet. Default: the workbook.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new impact context: dependent formulas will break with #NAME?. That downstream consequence is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the consequence following immediately; nothing extraneous.

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 mutation with no output schema, it covers the primary risk (broken formulas) but omits usage context and leaves the required 'path' parameter undocumented, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently in all cases.

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 coverage is 67%, with 'name' and 'sheet' documented including a default for sheet, while 'path' has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the undocumented path parameter remains a 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+resource combination ('Delete a defined name') and even names the consequence, which clearly separates it from sibling set_defined_name. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling alternatives, but the resource target is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to delete versus modify via set_defined_name, nor any prerequisites such as needing the name to already exist. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete'.

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