Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SheetForge MCP

SheetForge MCP

by iHeldan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

create_pivot_table

Destructive

Create a pivot table in an Excel worksheet from a specified data range, summarizing rows, columns, and values with aggregation functions.

Instructions

Create pivot table in worksheet.

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>",
      "sheet_name": "<sheet_name>",
      "data_range": "<data_range>",
      "rows": "<rows>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "create_pivot_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYes
valuesYes
columnsNo
agg_funcNosum
filepathYesReuse supplied server path; NEVER prepend client cwd. Rooted: relative OK; unrooted stdio: absolute, ask if missing.
data_rangeYes
sheet_nameYes
replace_existingNo

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

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation, but the description adds nothing: it doesn't say that replace_existing overwrites an existing pivot at the same location, where the resulting pivot is placed, or whether the source data is touched. For a destructive 8-parameter mutation, that is a substantial gap beyond what the annotation already says.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

One short sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — the length budget is unused on the information an agent actually needs.

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?

With 8 parameters, 5 of them required, destructiveHint=true, and no output schema, the definition needs to carry serious weight. It says nothing about parameter intent, overwrite semantics, or what is returned, so it is not sufficient to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 13% (filepath alone is documented), leaving rows, values, columns, agg_func, data_range, sheet_name, and replace_existing as bare titles. The description doesn't compensate at all — no mention of expected aggregation keywords for agg_func ('sum' is only a default in the schema), the address format for data_range, or what null columns means.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create pivot table') and the target location ('in worksheet'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this from nearby aggregation siblings such as aggregate_table, query_table, or create_table, leaving an agent to guess which one to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than aggregate_table, query_table, or create_table, and no prerequisites (sheet must exist, must be unprotected). The only framing is the noun 'pivot table', which the agent has to interpret on its own.

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