Skip to main content
Glama
SheetForge MCP

SheetForge MCP

by iHeldan

append_excel_table_rows

Destructive

Append rows to a native Excel table and expand its range safely, with optional dry-run and structure-change controls for reliable workbook updates.

Instructions

Append rows to a native Excel table and expand its range safely.

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>",
      "table_name": "<table_name>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "append_excel_table_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYes
dry_runNo
filepathYesReuse supplied server path; NEVER prepend client cwd. Rooted: relative OK; unrooted stdio: absolute, ask if missing.
sheet_nameNo
table_nameYes
include_changesNo
allow_structure_changeNo
expected_structure_tokenNo

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the useful facts that rows are appended and the table's range is expanded. However, 'safely' is unsubstantiated: nothing explains what 'expand its range' actually changes, what can go wrong, or how the dry_run / allow_structure_change / structure-token guards behave. Safety-profile coverage is inherited from annotations rather than earned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word is about the action and its effect. It is tight but borders on under-specified rather than padded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An eight-parameter, destructive, structure-token-guarded mutation with no output schema needs far more description than one sentence. The agent is left without any explanation of the guard parameters or the return shape, which is inadequate for a write operation of this complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 13% (only filepath is documented), so the description must compensate for eight parameters and does not touch any of them. Critical semantics — the shape/keys of 'rows', what dry_run previews, when expected_structure_token must be supplied, and what allow_structure_change permits — are undisclosed in either the schema or the description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('append rows') and resource ('native Excel table'), plus the side effect of expanding the table range. It does not distinguish itself from siblings append_table_rows or upsert_excel_table_rows, so an agent must guess which append variant to use.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With near-identical siblings (append_table_rows, upsert_excel_table_rows, update_rows_by_key) in the toolset, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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