xlwings Excel MCP Server

by hyunjae-labs

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific Excel operations like formulas, ranges, sheets, or charts, with clear boundaries. However, some overlap exists between 'delete_range' and 'delete_sheet_rows/columns', which could cause confusion about which to use for row/column deletion, and 'validate_excel_range' might be redundant with range validation implied in other tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'apply_formula', 'close_workbook', 'copy_range', and 'create_chart'. The only minor deviation is 'force_close_workbook_by_path_tool', which still adheres to the pattern but includes extra descriptors, maintaining overall readability and predictability.
Tool Count3/5
With 29 tools, the count is borderline high for an Excel server, potentially overwhelming for agents. While Excel is a complex domain, the set includes some specialized tools like 'get_merged_cells' and 'validate_formula_syntax' that might be less frequently used, suggesting the surface could be more streamlined without losing core functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Excel operations, including workbook management (open, close, create), sheet operations (create, delete, rename), data manipulation (read, write, copy, delete), formatting, charts, pivot tables, and validation. There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform full CRUD and lifecycle tasks for Excel files seamlessly.
Average 3.7/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 2 times in the last 30 days.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Apply Excel formula to cell' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this overwrites existing content, what happens with formula errors, whether it triggers workbook recalculation, or what permissions are required. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action statement.
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?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear main statement followed by a parameter list. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the parameter explanations are minimal (just repeating parameter names with basic examples), and there's some wasted space in the formatting with excessive line breaks.
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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should provide more context about the mutation behavior, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The description covers the basics but leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies spreadsheet content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing all 4 parameters with brief explanations. However, it provides minimal semantic context beyond parameter names - for example, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'cell' format beyond the 'A1' example, what types of formulas are supported, or how sheet_name interacts with the session. The parameter documentation is present but superficial.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply Excel formula') and target ('to cell'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'write_data_to_excel' or 'format_range' that might also modify cell content, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific formula application method.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like requiring an open workbook session), comparison to similar tools (like 'write_data_to_excel' for static values), or any context about appropriate use cases for formula application versus direct data writing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose whether this operation requires specific permissions, what happens if target_sheet already exists, whether formatting/formulas are preserved, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be more informative. The formatting with 'Args:' section aids readability.
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?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context for a mutation operation. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but important operational details (error conditions, dependencies, side effects) remain undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides basic semantic meaning for all three parameters: session_id is 'from open_workbook', source_sheet is 'Name of the source worksheet', and target_sheet is 'Name of the target worksheet'. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format constraints or edge cases.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Copy worksheet') and resource ('within workbook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'copy_range' or 'rename_worksheet' which also manipulate worksheet content.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_range' (for partial content) or 'create_worksheet' (for new sheets). The description mentions 'session_id from open_workbook' as a prerequisite but doesn't explain the broader context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Excel formula will write to cell without any verification' which hints at potential data overwriting risks, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, error handling, or response format. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero 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?
Well-structured with purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence purpose statement is efficient, and parameter descriptions are clear though could be more concise. No redundant information, but the 'Excel formula' sentence feels slightly disconnected from the main description.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description provides basic operational context but lacks important behavioral details. It covers what the tool does and parameter meanings but misses critical information about safety, error conditions, and practical usage constraints that would be needed for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantic meaning for all 4 parameters (session_id, sheet_name, data format, start_cell behavior), explaining that data is 'list of lists containing data to write' and start_cell 'auto-finds appropriate location' when optional. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., cell reference format, data type constraints) or examples.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'write' and resource 'Excel worksheet' with specific data format (list of lists). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_data_from_excel' by indicating directionality, though doesn't explicitly differentiate from other write-related tools like 'format_range' or 'apply_formula'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'session_id from open_workbook' as a prerequisite but doesn't explain when to choose this over other data manipulation tools like 'apply_formula' or 'copy_range'. No exclusions or comparison with siblings provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action 'Delete' but doesn't elaborate on critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to dependent formulas/charts, if it requires specific permissions, or error conditions (e.g., deleting the last worksheet). The mention of 'session_id' hints at stateful operation but doesn't explain session management implications.
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?
The description is appropriately brief with three sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
Given a destructive operation with no annotations but an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks important context: no warnings about data loss, no mention of workbook state changes, and no guidance on error handling. For a deletion tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavioral implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the 0% schema coverage. It explains 'session_id' comes 'from open_workbook' and is 'required', and 'sheet_name' identifies 'the worksheet to delete'. This clarifies parameter purposes and relationships that aren't in the schema titles alone. With 2 parameters and good semantic clarification, it compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'worksheet from workbook', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_range', 'delete_sheet_columns', and 'delete_sheet_rows' by specifying it deletes entire worksheets rather than ranges or rows/columns. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'close_workbook' or 'force_close_workbook_by_path_tool', which might also involve workbook modifications.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open workbook session), consequences (e.g., data loss), or when to choose other deletion tools like 'delete_range'. The only implied context is the 'session_id' parameter reference to 'open_workbook', but this isn't explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or details about response format (though an output schema exists). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.
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?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the purpose and one for parameter explanations. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and the parameter details are concise. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for parameters.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'session_id' as 'Session ID from open_workbook (required)' and 'include_ranges' as 'Whether to include range information', adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't cover all potential parameters or provide examples, leaving some gaps.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get metadata about workbook including sheets, ranges, etc.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workbook metadata'), and the inclusion of 'sheets, ranges, etc.' provides helpful scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_workbooks' or 'read_data_from_excel', which could be used for similar purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that 'session_id' is required from 'open_workbook', which is a prerequisite but not usage context. There's no mention of when to prefer this over other tools like 'list_workbooks' or 'read_data_from_excel', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cell metadata including validation rules' which adds some context about what data is returned, but doesn't cover important aspects like: whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications for large ranges, error handling, or what 'preview_only' actually means in practice.
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?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place, though the purpose statement could be slightly more front-loaded. No wasted words, but the formatting with quotes and line breaks is slightly verbose.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, Excel operations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context about the read operation's scope, limitations, or relationship to other tools. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but more operational guidance would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that session_id is 'required' and from 'open_workbook', specifies defaults for start_cell and preview_only, and explains end_cell's auto-expansion behavior. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('data from Excel worksheet') with specific scope ('with cell metadata including validation rules'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_data_to_excel' by specifying reading vs writing, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read-like operations that might exist.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_workbook_metadata' or 'get_data_validation_info' that might overlap, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., requires an open workbook session). Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool closes a session and mentions a 'save' parameter with a default, but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., if unsaved data is lost when save=False), authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid session_id), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, errors) and usage guidelines, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'session_id' comes from 'open_workbook' and clarifies the purpose of 'save' (whether to save changes) with its default value. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail parameter constraints or formats.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Close a workbook session') and identifies the resource ('workbook session'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'force_close_workbook_by_path_tool', which appears to serve a similar purpose but uses a different method (path-based vs. session-based).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that 'session_id' must come from 'open_workbook'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'force_close_workbook_by_path_tool'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a worksheet but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if a worksheet with the same name exists, or any rate limits. The description is too basic for a mutation tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only three sentences, front-loading the main purpose first. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second and third explain the parameters. No wasted words or redundant information.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and only 2 parameters with basic types, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about side effects, error conditions, or success criteria to be truly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents both parameters (session_id and sheet_name) with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. While it doesn't provide detailed format requirements or constraints, it successfully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create new worksheet') and resource ('in workbook'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_workbook' or 'copy_worksheet', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
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?
The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning the required 'session_id from open_workbook', but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. copy_worksheet), or prerequisites beyond the session requirement. No context about when this tool is preferred over other creation methods is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions performance considerations (session_id preference) and deprecation warnings, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites existing formatting), what permissions are needed, error conditions, or how it interacts with other formatting tools. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with 19 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description has a clear two-part structure: purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. However, it's quite lengthy due to listing all 19 parameters. While each parameter entry is concise, the overall description could be more efficiently structured, perhaps grouping related formatting parameters. The 'Note' about session_id/filepath is appropriately placed.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description does a reasonable job. The parameter documentation is thorough, but behavioral context is lacking. For a formatting tool that likely modifies workbook state, more information about side effects, error handling, and interaction with other tools would be beneficial despite the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides a comprehensive list of all 19 parameters with brief explanations, adding significant value beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. Each parameter gets a clear label explaining its purpose (e.g., 'bold: Apply bold formatting', 'font_size: Font size'). This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Apply formatting to a range of cells.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from many siblings like 'apply_formula', 'copy_range', or 'write_data_to_excel'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'merge_cells' which is a specific formatting operation.
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?
The description provides some usage guidance: 'Use session_id for better performance. filepath parameter is deprecated.' This implies a preference for session_id over filepath, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_formula' or 'write_data_to_excel' for different formatting needs. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('List of session information dictionaries') but lacks details on what information is included (e.g., session IDs, timestamps, user data), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any limitations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with workbook sessions.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with two brief sentences that directly state the action and return value. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like what constitutes an 'open workbook session' or how the list is formatted, which could be helpful despite the structured data. This makes it just sufficient but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters, which is appropriate, but doesn't add any extra context about optional filters or scoping, so it's not a perfect score.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all open workbook sessions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workbook_metadata' or 'open_workbook', which could also provide session-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for checking active sessions before opening a workbook or as a general status check, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Rename worksheet in workbook' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether renaming requires specific permissions, what happens if the new name conflicts with existing worksheets, if the change is reversible, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently lists parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is partially complete. It covers basic purpose and parameter meanings but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'session_id' is 'from open_workbook (required)', clarifies 'old_name' as 'Current name of the worksheet', and 'new_name' as 'New name for the worksheet', providing essential semantics that the schema lacks. However, it doesn't detail constraints like name length or allowed characters.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Rename' and the resource 'worksheet in workbook', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_worksheet' or 'delete_worksheet' by focusing on name modification, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'copy_worksheet' which might also involve naming.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'session_id: Session ID from open_workbook (required)', implying a prerequisite, but offers no explicit when/when-not rules or comparisons to sibling tools like 'copy_worksheet' or 'create_worksheet' that might affect naming decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions performance considerations ('better performance') and deprecation status, but doesn't cover other important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output looks like (though there's an output schema), error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists parameters with brief explanations, and ends with a note about usage preferences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The formatting with 'Args:' and 'Note:' makes it easy to parse.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the description covers all parameters despite 0% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it could better explain how this tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., relationship to 'open_workbook', 'merge_cells'). The performance and deprecation notes are helpful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this effectively by explaining all three parameters: 'sheet_name' (name of worksheet), 'session_id' (from open_workbook, preferred), and 'filepath' (path to Excel file, legacy, deprecated). The description adds crucial context about parameter relationships and usage preferences that isn't in the schema, though it doesn't provide format details or examples.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get merged cells in a worksheet.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('merged cells'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'merge_cells' or 'unmerge_cells' beyond the obvious read vs. write distinction. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being misleading.
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?
The description provides some usage guidance by noting that 'session_id' is preferred over 'filepath' for better performance and that 'filepath' is deprecated. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_data_from_excel' or how it relates to sibling tools like 'merge_cells' or 'unmerge_cells'. The guidance is implied rather than explicit about broader context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions performance implications and deprecation warnings, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe what happens to existing data (e.g., whether rows shift down), whether this operation requires specific permissions, what the output looks like, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the performance/deprecation notes earlier, but overall it's efficiently organized and appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool.
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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the core functionality and parameters adequately. However, it lacks important behavioral context about what the insertion actually does to the worksheet structure and existing data. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address the mutation's effects more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: 'sheet_name: Name of worksheet', 'start_row: Row number to start inserting at', 'session_id: Session ID from open_workbook (preferred)', 'filepath: Path to Excel file (legacy, deprecated)', and 'count: Number of rows to insert'. The performance guidance and deprecation warning for filepath are particularly valuable additions not present in the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert one or more rows') and resource ('starting at the specified row'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'insert_columns' by specifying row insertion rather than column insertion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible row-related operations like 'delete_sheet_rows' beyond the obvious verb difference.
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?
The description provides clear context about parameter usage with 'Use session_id for better performance' and 'filepath parameter is deprecated', which helps guide parameter selection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_data_to_excel' or 'copy_range' for similar data manipulation tasks, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an open workbook session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'create a session' and parameters like 'visible' and 'read_only', which hint at behavioral traits, but it lacks critical details such as whether this locks the file, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid filepaths), or manages session lifecycle. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by a structured list of arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and an output schema that documents the return values, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return structure, but it could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., error handling or session management) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'filepath' is the path to the Excel file, 'visible' controls whether to show the Excel window (with a default), and 'read_only' determines the opening mode (with a default). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover format details like path syntax.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Open an Excel workbook and create a session'), identifies the resource (Excel workbook), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_workbook' (which creates new workbooks) and 'list_workbooks' (which lists existing ones). It goes beyond a tautology by explaining the session creation aspect.
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?
The description implies usage through the mention of 'session' and parameters like 'read_only', suggesting it's for accessing existing files, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_workbook' for new files or 'list_workbooks' for discovery. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation (implies mutation) and provides performance guidance about session_id versus filepath. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this modifies the workbook permanently, what permissions are required, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation and a usage note. Every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the performance note earlier, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 9 parameters, and an output schema exists, the description does an adequate job. The parameter documentation is excellent, and the output schema will handle return values. However, for a tool that modifies workbooks, the description should ideally mention more about behavioral implications, error handling, or prerequisites beyond just parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing a comprehensive parameter list with clear explanations for all 9 parameters. It distinguishes required vs optional parameters, provides guidance on deprecated parameters (filepath), and explains parameter relationships (session_id from open_workbook). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states 'Create chart in worksheet' which specifies the verb (create) and resource (chart in worksheet). It distinguishes from siblings like create_table or create_pivot_table by focusing specifically on charts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other chart-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.
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?
The description provides clear guidance on parameter usage: 'Use session_id for better performance. filepath parameter is deprecated.' This gives explicit when-to-use recommendations for two parameters. However, it doesn't provide broader context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_table or create_pivot_table for data visualization needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions performance implications ('better performance') and deprecation status, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether the workbook is opened in memory, saved to disk, or requires subsequent actions), which would be important for a creation tool.
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?
The description is perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a labeled 'Args' section and a 'Note' for additional guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the main purpose.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only 2 parameters with good description coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, for a creation tool, it could benefit from mentioning what the created workbook object represents or how it integrates with other tools (e.g., for subsequent operations).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'session_id' is for 'creating workbook in existing session' and is optional, while 'filepath' is 'legacy, deprecated' and provides usage recommendations. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format requirements (e.g., path syntax).
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new Excel workbook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'open_workbook' (which opens existing files) and 'list_workbooks' (which lists existing ones), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description itself.
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?
The description provides clear guidance on parameter usage ('Use session_id for better performance. filepath parameter is deprecated'), which helps the agent understand when to use which parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open_workbook' for existing files or provide broader context about when creation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool's action (unmerging cells) and performance considerations, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: whether this operation is destructive (likely yes, but not stated), what happens to data in previously merged cells, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description provides basic operational context but misses key behavioral traits.
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?
The description is perfectly structured and front-loaded: a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation with practical notes. Every sentence earns its place - the first states the action, the Args section documents parameters efficiently, and the Note provides crucial usage guidance without redundancy.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides adequate operational context but could be more complete. It covers the basic action and parameters well, but lacks information about the mutation's effects, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but behavioral aspects remain under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, including their purposes and usage guidance (session_id preferred, filepath deprecated). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare parameter names in the schema, though it could provide more detail about cell range formatting or sheet name constraints.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('unmerge') and target resource ('a range of cells'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'merge_cells' (which does the opposite) and other Excel manipulation tools. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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?
The description provides clear context about parameter usage (preferring session_id over deprecated filepath for better performance), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'merge_cells' or other cell manipulation tools. It offers practical guidance on parameter selection but lacks sibling tool differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates range existence and formatting, and notes performance implications (session_id for better performance) and deprecation (filepath is legacy). However, it doesn't describe what 'properly formatted' means, error conditions, or the output format. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap in behavioral context.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then lists parameters with concise notes, and ends with a usage note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is clear and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, validation function) and context signals (0% schema coverage, but output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and usage guidelines. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., what validation entails) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations: sheet_name, start_cell, session_id, filepath, and end_cell, adding meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'Session ID from open_workbook (preferred)', 'Path to Excel file (legacy, deprecated)', 'Ending cell (optional)'). This covers parameter purposes and usage notes, though it doesn't detail format specifics like cell notation. The description adds significant value over the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate if a range exists and is properly formatted.' This specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('range'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_formula_syntax' or 'get_merged_cells' which also involve validation or range operations. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides clear context for usage through the 'Note' section: 'Use session_id for better performance. filepath parameter is deprecated.' This gives guidance on parameter preferences and deprecation, helping the agent choose between session_id and filepath. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_data_from_excel' for range validation or other validation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a destructive operation ('Delete'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether deletions are permanent/irreversible, if there are confirmation prompts, performance implications, or error handling. The performance note about session_id is a positive addition.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and usage notes. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' section formatting could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.
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?
Given this is a destructive operation with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description does a good job covering the essentials: purpose, parameters, and some behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, for a deletion tool, more explicit warnings about data loss and prerequisites would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the 0% schema coverage. It explains what each parameter does ('sheet_name: Name of worksheet', 'start_row: Row number to start deleting from'), gives usage guidance ('session_id from open_workbook (preferred)', 'filepath... deprecated'), and clarifies defaults ('count: Number of rows to delete' with implied default of 1). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete one or more rows') and the target ('starting at the specified row'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_range' and 'delete_sheet_columns' by focusing on rows, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_worksheet' which removes entire worksheets.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use certain parameters ('Use session_id for better performance. filepath parameter is deprecated'), which helps guide parameter selection. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_range' or 'delete_worksheet', and doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an open workbook session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavior. It mentions performance implications (session_id preference) and deprecation warnings, but doesn't describe what happens during the copy (overwrites target cells? preserves formatting?), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
Perfectly structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear Args section with bullet-point parameter explanations, and a Note section for important behavioral guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and provides some behavioral context, though it could better explain the copy operation's effects and error scenarios. The output schema existence reduces the need for return value documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters in detail. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter (source vs target ranges, session_id for performance, filepath deprecation, optional target_sheet), adds semantic meaning beyond just parameter names, and provides important usage notes about parameter preferences.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('a range of cells to another location'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'copy_worksheet' (which copies entire worksheets) and 'write_data_to_excel' (which writes data rather than copying ranges). It precisely defines the scope of the operation.
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?
The description provides clear context about parameter usage (preferring session_id over deprecated filepath for performance), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_worksheet' or 'write_data_to_excel'. It offers good parameter guidance but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions performance implications ('Use session_id for better performance') and deprecation warnings ('filepath parameter is deprecated'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this operation modifies existing data (e.g., shifting cells), requires specific permissions, or has side effects on formulas/charts.
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?
The description is perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by an 'Args:' section with parameter explanations and a 'Note:' with important guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 5 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description does well by documenting all parameters and providing usage guidance. However, it could be more complete by mentioning behavioral aspects like data shifting or effects on other worksheet elements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does this excellently by listing all 5 parameters with brief explanations ('sheet_name: Name of worksheet', 'start_col: Column number to start inserting at', etc.) and providing important usage notes about session_id vs filepath and the default count value.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert one or more columns') and specifies the resource ('starting at the specified column'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert_rows' or 'delete_sheet_columns', which would require a 5.
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?
The description provides clear guidance on parameter usage ('Use session_id for better performance. filepath parameter is deprecated'), which helps the agent choose between alternatives. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus other column-related tools like 'delete_sheet_columns' or 'copy_range', missing explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits like performance considerations (session_id preference) and deprecation status, but doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation (modifies workbook), what happens when target_sheet doesn't exist (auto-created), or any error conditions. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose statement, Args list, Note) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the note about session_id/filepath into the parameter descriptions, but overall it's efficiently organized with minimal waste.
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?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and basic usage. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, for a tool that modifies workbooks, more behavioral context about side effects and error conditions would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for all 11 parameters, including required vs optional status, examples ('A1:E100'), default behaviors ('auto-created if not exists'), and usage guidance ('preferred', 'deprecated'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create pivot table') and resource ('in worksheet'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_table or create_chart that perform different Excel operations. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear context about parameter preferences ('Use session_id for better performance') and deprecation warnings ('filepath parameter is deprecated'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_table or when pivot tables are appropriate versus other data summarization methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Delete') and shifting behavior, but lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens to formulas/formatting. It provides basic behavioral context but misses important operational details.
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?
The description is perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations with practical notes. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and efficiently organized.
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 destructive operation with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description does well explaining parameters and basic behavior. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could better address error conditions and sibling tool differentiation given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 6 parameters in the Args section, including practical guidance about session_id preference and filepath deprecation. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though could provide more detail on cell reference formats.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete a range of cells and shift remaining cells') with the resource ('cells in a worksheet'). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_sheet_columns/rows by specifying range-based deletion with shifting behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear context for parameter usage (session_id preferred over deprecated filepath) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_sheet_columns or delete_sheet_rows. It offers practical guidance but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), mentions performance considerations, and notes deprecation, but doesn't disclose error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens to adjacent columns after deletion.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and usage notes. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise.
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 destructive operation with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description provides good coverage of purpose, parameters, and basic usage guidance. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more behavioral context about the deletion's effects would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in detail: sheet_name identifies the worksheet, start_col specifies where to begin deletion, session_id/filepath provide workbook access methods with performance/deprecation notes, and count determines how many columns to delete.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete one or more columns starting at the specified column'), identifies the resource (columns in a worksheet), and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_sheet_rows and delete_range by specifying column deletion rather than row or range deletion.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on parameter usage (session_id preferred over deprecated filepath) and implies context through sibling tools like open_workbook, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_range or delete_worksheet.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the action is 'force close' (implying mutation/destructive), it does not save changes, and it returns a dictionary with status. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-organized.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, but as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error conditions or permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'filepath' is the 'Path to the workbook to force close', clarifying the parameter's role. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage, though it could specify format constraints (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths).
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('force close'), the resource ('a specific workbook'), and the method ('by file path'), with explicit mention of 'without saving' distinguishing it from potential save-and-close alternatives. It directly addresses the verb+resource+scope requirement and differentiates from siblings like 'close_workbook' by specifying the forceful, non-saving nature.
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?
The description implies usage context through 'force close... without saving', suggesting this tool is for discarding unsaved changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'close_workbook' or provide exclusions. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools or detailed prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a mutation operation ('Merge a range of cells'), but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether the merge is reversible, what happens to existing cell data, or if specific permissions are required. The performance note about session_id is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.
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?
The description is perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation and usage notes. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides good coverage of the operation and parameters. However, for a destructive operation like cell merging, it should ideally mention data implications or refer to 'unmerge_cells' for reversal options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, including their purposes and usage guidance (session_id preferred, filepath deprecated). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format details like cell reference syntax.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Merge a range of cells') with the resource ('cells'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'unmerge_cells' which performs the opposite operation. The verb 'merge' is precise and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear context about parameter usage ('Use session_id for better performance. filepath parameter is deprecated'), which helps guide parameter selection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'format_range' or 'create_table' for similar spreadsheet operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (retrieving validation rules) and return format (JSON string), but lacks details on error conditions, performance characteristics beyond the session_id note, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). It adds some context about parameter preferences but doesn't cover all behavioral aspects.
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?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, adds clarifying context about what information is returned, then provides parameter details with clear formatting (Args/Returns sections). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the note about parameter preferences is efficiently placed.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains parameters well and mentions the return format. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context (error handling, read-only nature) since annotations are absent. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but some operational context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of each parameter ('Name of worksheet', 'Session ID from open_workbook', 'Path to Excel file'), provides usage guidance ('preferred', 'legacy, deprecated'), and clarifies relationships between parameters. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get all data validation rules') and resources ('in a worksheet'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'validate_excel_range' or 'validate_formula_syntax' by focusing on retrieving existing validation rules rather than performing validation. It explicitly mentions what types of information are returned ('which cell ranges have validation rules and what types of validation are applied').
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use certain parameters ('Use session_id for better performance. filepath parameter is deprecated'), which helps guide parameter selection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_excel_range' or other data retrieval tools, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open workbook session).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates something (implying mutation) and mentions performance considerations, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and a note. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the note into the main flow. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description does well by explaining all parameters and usage guidance. However, with an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values, but could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, marks 'filepath' as deprecated, indicates 'session_id' is preferred for performance, and notes optional parameters. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Creates a native Excel table') and resource ('from a specified range of data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_workbook or create_worksheet. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use certain parameters: 'Use session_id for better performance' and 'filepath parameter is deprecated.' It also implies context by specifying it works with Excel data ranges, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like create_pivot_table.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a validation-only operation ('without applying it'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe what happens on validation failure/success, whether it returns error details, performance characteristics beyond the session_id note, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is perfectly structured and concise. The purpose is stated clearly in the first sentence, followed by a well-organized parameter section with bullet-like formatting, and ending with important usage notes. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words or redundant information.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and the description provides excellent parameter semantics and clear purpose/guidelines, this is quite complete. The main gap is in behavioral transparency - while the output schema will describe the return structure, the description doesn't explain what validation actually entails or what happens on failure. For a validation tool, this is a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 5 parameters. It explains what each parameter represents (sheet name, cell address, formula to validate, session ID, filepath), provides format examples ('e.g., "A1"'), and gives important usage guidance about session_id preference and filepath deprecation. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('Excel formula syntax'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'apply_formula' by explicitly stating it validates 'without applying it'. This provides clear differentiation from tools that would actually modify the workbook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use specific parameters: 'Use session_id for better performance. filepath parameter is deprecated.' It also implicitly distinguishes from 'apply_formula' by stating this only validates without applying, and from 'validate_excel_range' by focusing on formula syntax rather than range validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![xlwings-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hyunjae-labs/xlwings-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hyunjae-labs/xlwings-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![xlwings-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hyunjae-labs/xlwings-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hyunjae-labs/xlwings-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hyunjae-labs/xlwings-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server