Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SheetForge MCP

SheetForge MCP

by iHeldan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

aggregate_table

Read-only

Group and aggregate worksheet or native Excel table data to compute custom metrics using filters, sorting, and column-based grouping.

Instructions

Compute grouped metrics over worksheet-shaped data or a native Excel table.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filepath": "<filepath>"
    },
    "name": "aggregate_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
filtersNo
metricsNo
sort_byNo
filepathYesReuse supplied server path; NEVER prepend client cwd. Rooted: relative OK; unrooted stdio: absolute, ask if missing.
group_byNo
row_modeNoarrays
sort_descNo
header_rowNo
sheet_nameNo
table_nameNo
infer_schemaNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.14.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / filepath / description
      Added value: +"Reuse supplied server path; NEVER prepend client cwd. Rooted: relative OK; unrooted stdio: absolute, ask if missing."
  2. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the tool is honest about being a read. Beyond that the description adds no behavior: no indication of how metrics/filters are applied, whether missing group_by means a single total, how limit interacts with ordering, or what happens when both table_name and worksheet data are plausible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally good. For a 12-parameter aggregation tool, though, this level of brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Twelve parameters, near-zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a one-line description leave the agent without enough to call this correctly. It lacks any explanation of metric/filter shapes, output shape, or the sheet-vs-table selection logic.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With roughly 0% schema description coverage across roughly 10 parameters (filters, metrics, group_by, sort_by, sort_desc, limit, row_mode, header_row, table_name, infer_worksheet), the description carries the full explanatory burden and explains none of them. The object-shaped filters/metrics arrays are especially opaque without guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb ('compute grouped metrics') and resource ('worksheet-shaped data or a native Excel table'), so the general idea of a read-only grouped aggregation is conveyed. However, 'worksheet-shaped data' is vague and nothing distinguishes this from close siblings like query_table, create_pivot_table, or bulk_aggregate_workbooks.

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 sentence says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. sheet vs table selection, header row expectations), and no exclusions. An agent must infer routing entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools