Excel MCP Server

Delete note

delete_note

Destructive

Remove a comment or note attached to a specific Excel cell by providing the workbook path, sheet name, and cell reference.

Instructions

Remove the note from a cell.

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>",
      "cell": "<cell>"
    },
    "name": "delete_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cell`	Yes
`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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deleting a nonexistent note errors (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what happens to the cell afterward.

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 with the target front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with three entirely undocumented parameters and no output schema needs more than one sentence. Nothing about failure modes, permissions, or spreadsheet addressing is provided.

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 0%, so all three parameters (path, sheet, cell) rely on names alone. The phrase 'from a cell' loosely gestures at the cell parameter but gives no format guidance for path or sheet, leaving the description to carry a burden it does not meet.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: 'Remove the note' scoped 'from a cell'. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like set_note or delete_chart, though the text never names the counterpart operation or differentiates explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative set_note for modifying versus removing notes. The agent must infer context 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.