Excel MCP Server

Set note

set_note

Destructive

Add or replace a note in a specific Excel cell by providing the workbook path, sheet, cell reference, note text, and optional author.

Instructions

Add a note to a cell, replacing its existing note.

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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "set_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cell`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`sheet`	Yes
`author`	No	Claude

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description's "replacing its existing note" reinforces what is destroyed, which is useful specificity. However it says nothing about permissions, the default author value, or what happens to note formatting, so it only modestly extends the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the replacement behavior is stated up front. It is efficient if terse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, one sentence is not enough. Identifying which workbook/sheet is targeted and where the author comes from is left entirely to inference, so the definition is incomplete.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description bears the full burden, yet it only implicitly references `cell` and `text`. Path, sheet, and the `author` parameter (with its default of "Claude") are undocumented anywhere, leaving three of five parameters unexplained.

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 (add/set) and resource (a note on a cell) and adds the important qualifier that it replaces any existing note. An agent can distinguish it from delete_note, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the mutation semantics ("replacing its existing note"), so an agent can infer this writes a note rather than removing one. But there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative (e.g. delete_note) guidance.

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