Excel MCP Server

Delete slicer

delete_slicer

Destructive

Remove a slicer or timeline from an Excel sheet without losing table or PivotTable filters; timeline periods are cleared.

Instructions

Remove a slicer or timeline. As in Excel, tables and PivotTable fields stay filtered; a timeline's period is cleared.

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_slicer"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuine post-deletion behavior: tables and PivotTable fields remain filtered and a timeline's period is cleared. That is exactly the kind of side effect an agent cannot infer from the schema, though permissions and error behavior are still unmentioned.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the operational consequence. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition usefully explains the state left behind after deletion, but leaves parameter format and any permission requirements undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 33%; name is documented as coming from describe_sheet, but path and sheet have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining what path and sheet should contain, so the agent must guess their format.

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 ('a slicer or timeline'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling add_slicer. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_slicer or other deletion tools, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The only inference available is that it is destructive, which comes from annotations rather than the description.

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