import_workbookUpload an Excel workbook to the server for remote editing. It removes unsafe hyperlinks and rejects external links, connections, and linked objects.
Upload a workbook to the server (remote editing).
Drops unsafe hyperlinks (see note); refuses external links, connections, linked objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| content_base64 | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / content_base64 / descriptionRemoved value: -"The workbook file, base64 encoded."Input schema / properties / content_base64 / titleRemoved value: -"Content Base64"Input schema / properties / overwrite / defaultRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / overwrite / descriptionRemoved value: -"Replace the file if it already exists."Input schema / properties / overwrite / titleRemoved value: -"Overwrite"Input schema / properties / path / descriptionRemoved value: -"Path to an .xlsx, .xlsm, .xltx or .xltm file. Relative paths are resolved in the server's workbook directory when one is configured; otherwise use an absolute path."Input schema / properties / path / titleRemoved value: -"Path"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"import_workbookArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "import_workbookOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered upstream. The description adds real value beyond that: unsafe hyperlinks are dropped and external links, connections and linked objects cause refusal. The dangling 'see `note`' reference is the only soft spot.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short lines with the core action front-loaded and the caveats second. The cryptic cross-reference to a `note` costs it a point but there is no padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, three-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition should at minimum explain the overwrite semantics and path expectations. Those gaps matter for a tool that can clobber server state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does not: nothing explains the format of `path`, whether `content_base64` is standard or URL-safe base64, or that `overwrite` controls clobbering an existing workbook. Only 'upload' loosely implies the content parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: upload a workbook to the server, clarified as 'remote editing'. This separates it implicitly from export_workbook and create_workbook, but it never names a sibling or states the contrast explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (create_workbook, export_workbook, list_workbooks all exist as plausible confusions). The refusal list describes what the tool rejects, not when an agent should choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.