Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SheetForge MCP

SheetForge MCP

by iHeldan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

apply_workbook_repairs

Destructive

Repair Excel workbooks safely with dry-run planning and before/after diff output to validate fixes before writing changes.

Instructions

Apply safe workbook repair actions with dry-run planning and before/after diff output.

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": "apply_workbook_repairs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
filepathYesReuse supplied server path; NEVER prepend client cwd. Rooted: relative OK; unrooted stdio: absolute, ask if missing.
header_rowNo
sheet_namesNo
repair_typesNo
sample_limitNo

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

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning dry-run planning and before/after diff output, but it does not explain what kinds of changes are destructive, whether repairs are reversible, or what permissions are needed. The word 'safe' is also somewhat vague against a destructive annotation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to the stated purpose and safety mechanism.

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?

This is a destructive six-parameter tool with no output schema and very low schema description coverage. The one-sentence description is too thin to fully prepare an agent to invoke it correctly; it omits repair scope, parameter meanings, and risk details beyond the dry-run and diff mention.

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 17%, with only filepath documented in the schema. The description does not explain repair_types, sheet_names, header_row, sample_limit, or the dry_run default, so it fails to compensate for the low parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply safe workbook repair actions.' An agent can tell this tool mutates workbook repairs rather than reading or planning. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling plan_workbook_repairs or apply_workbook_changeset, so it misses the top 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 mentions dry-run planning but does not explain when to use this tool versus plan_workbook_repairs or apply_workbook_changeset. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when a dry run should be used first, or when to avoid applying repairs directly.

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