Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SheetForge MCP

SheetForge MCP

by iHeldan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

validate_formula_syntax

Read-only

Checks Excel formula syntax before applying it, helping catch invalid formulas and reduce workbook errors.

Instructions

Validate Excel formula syntax without applying it.

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>",
      "cell": "<cell>",
      "formula": "<formula>"
    },
    "name": "validate_formula_syntax"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cellYes
formulaYes
filepathYesReuse supplied server path; NEVER prepend client cwd. Rooted: relative OK; unrooted stdio: absolute, ask if missing.
sheet_nameYes

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is non-mutating, so 'without applying it' is largely redundant with the annotation. The description adds nothing about what validation produces (boolean vs. error message), whether validation is contextual to the given cell/sheet, or whether the file must exist first.

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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps noted in the other dimensions.

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?

Four required parameters, no output schema, and a mutation-adjacent workflow ('validate before apply') — yet the description says nothing about return values (pass/fail shape, error detail) or the sheet/cell context requirement. For this parameter profile the description should carry far more.

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 coverage is only 25% — just filepath is documented — and the description supplies zero parameter meaning. It does not explain the non-obvious requirement that sheet_name and cell give the reference context needed to validate relative/A1 references, which is the key semantic an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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+resource (validate Excel formula syntax) and the qualifier 'without applying it' implicitly separates it from the write-side sibling apply_formula. It does not name inspect_formula or explain_formula_cell, so the boundary with those read-side formula tools is left to inference.

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?

'Without applying it' hints at the check-before-apply workflow but never states when to prefer this over apply_formula or inspect_formula. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight gate rather than a diagnostic/explanation tool.

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