rename_sheetRename a worksheet in an Excel workbook and automatically update all references to it, matching Excel behavior. Provide path, sheet, and new name.
Rename a worksheet; references to it are updated as in Excel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| sheet | Yes | ||
| new_name | Yes | 1-31 characters, none of [ ] : * ? / \. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / new_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"New sheet name: 1-31 characters, none of [ ] : * ? / \\."New value: +"1-31 characters, none of [ ] : * ? / \\."Input schema / properties / new_name / titleRemoved value: -"New Name"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 / properties / sheet / descriptionRemoved value: -"Worksheet name, e.g. 'Sheet1'."Input schema / properties / sheet / titleRemoved value: -"Sheet"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"rename_sheetArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "rename_sheetOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured behavior: that references to the renamed sheet are updated, mirroring Excel, which signals a cross-workbook side effect rather than a pure metadata edit. It does not cover failure modes such as duplicate names.
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?
One tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect clause appended only where it adds value. No wasted words.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the annotations cover safety and the description covers the key side effect, but the two undocumented core parameters (path, sheet) leave an agent guessing about input expectations.
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?
With only 33% schema description coverage, only new_name (length and forbidden characters) is documented anywhere. The path and sheet parameters carry no format or expectation guidance in either the schema or the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Rename') and resource ('a worksheet'), and distinguishes itself immediately from sibling mutators like create_sheet, copy_sheet, and delete_sheet. The added clause about references being updated clarifies the operation's scope.
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?
The purpose implies when to use it, and the sibling set makes alternatives (copy_sheet, delete_sheet) obvious by name. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.