Excel MCP Server

Delete pivot table

delete_pivot_table

Destructive

Remove a PivotTable and clear its cells while preserving the source data. Disconnect slicers or timelines first, or deletion fails.

Instructions

Remove a PivotTable and clear its cells; the source stays. Fails while slicers or timelines are connected to it.

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_pivot_table"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description goes further by specifying exactly what is destroyed (the pivot table's cells) and what survives (the underlying source data). The documented failure mode with connected slicers/timelines is additional behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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 split into two clauses, front-loaded with the action and trailing with the caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple delete tool with no output schema and complete annotations, the description covers action, effect on source data, and a blocking precondition. The only real gap is guidance on the identification parameters (path/sheet/name), which the schema only partially documents.

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%: 'name' points to describe_sheet, while 'path' and 'sheet' are undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 3-required-parameter tool.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a PivotTable and clear its cells') and immediately scopes the effect with 'the source stays', which separates it from destructive sheet/range siblings like delete_sheet or clear_range. An agent can identify the operation and its blast radius without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a concrete precondition for invocation ('Fails while slicers or timelines are connected to it'), which tells the agent when the call will not succeed and implies a cleanup step first. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state when a different tool should be chosen instead.

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