Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SheetForge MCP

SheetForge MCP

by iHeldan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

write_data_to_excel

Destructive

Write rows to an Excel worksheet starting at a specified cell; use dry_run to preview package fidelity and commit readiness without saving, then recheck protected content before replacing the source.

Instructions

Write rows to a worksheet, starting at start_cell. Formulas are not evaluated.

dry_run serializes an isolated candidate and reports package_fidelity and
ready_to_commit without saving. Writes recheck protected XLSX content before
replacing the source. This is not a guarantee of full XLSX fidelity.

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": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "write_data_to_excel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
dry_runNo
filepathYesReuse supplied server path; NEVER prepend client cwd. Rooted: relative OK; unrooted stdio: absolute, ask if missing.
sheet_nameYes
start_cellNoA1
include_changesNo

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses that formulas are not evaluated (so formula cells become literal or are lost), that writes recheck protected XLSX content before replacing the source, and that full XLSX fidelity is not guaranteed. That is real behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive write; it stops short of saying whether existing cell contents are overwritten or whether the target sheet must already exist.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and anchor cell, then the preview mode, then the safety caveat. Almost every sentence earns its place; only the closing fidelity disclaimer is slightly redundant with the earlier warning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive write with no output schema, the description explains dry_run's return fields (package_fidelity, ready_to_commit) but never defines them, and it omits whether the target worksheet must pre-exist and how existing data is affected. The result is a definition that is workable but leaves an agent guessing on the commit path.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the burden and it only partially discharges it: start_cell and dry_run are given meaning, and filepath is covered in the schema itself. sheet_name, data shape, and especially include_changes are left unexplained, and include_changes is opaque enough to invite wrong invocation.

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 and resource ("Write rows to a worksheet") plus the anchoring location (start_cell), which distinguishes it from read tools like read_data_from_excel. It does not differentiate itself from sibling write paths such as append_table_rows, apply_table_patch, or apply_workbook_changeset.

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?

The dry_run sentence describes a preview-then-commit workflow, which implies how the tool is meant to be used, and the fidelity caveat warns that writing may be lossy. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this bulk row-write over a table append or changeset tool, and no statement of when-not to use it.

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