Excel MCP Server

Delete image

delete_image

Destructive

Remove a named image from a specified Excel sheet using the workbook path, sheet name, and image name.

Instructions

Remove an image from a sheet.

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_image"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent/reversible, whether it errors when the image is missing, or what permissions are needed. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this text contributes no extra behavioral context.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined pruning.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, no documented parameters beyond 'name', and no permissions or irreversibility notes, the definition leaves important gaps. An agent could call it, but with little confidence about side effects or required inputs.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% – only 'name' is documented ('Name from describe_sheet'), while 'path' and 'sheet' have no descriptions. The description must compensate but only loosely implies a sheet and an image identifier; it adds no format or disambiguation for path versus name, so the two undocumented parameters remain opaque.

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 (Remove) and resource (an image) scoped to a sheet, which cleanly separates it from the sibling insert_image. However, it does not differentiate further from other delete_* siblings or clarify what identifies the image beyond name/path.

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 stated prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as insert_image or delete_chart. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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