Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
office-mcp-server

office-mcp-server

by jiahuidegit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

excel_merge_cells

Idempotent

Merges a range of cells in an Excel sheet into one cell by specifying workbook ID, sheet name, and range.

Instructions

合并单元格

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": {
      "workbookId": "<workbookId>",
      "sheetName": "<sheetName>",
      "range": "<range>"
    },
    "name": "excel_merge_cells"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeYes单元格范围，如 A1:C1
sheetNameYes工作表名称
workbookIdYes工作簿ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description 'merge cells' adds no behavioral detail beyond these annotations, such as the effect on existing cell data or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations, but no extra value is provided.

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?

The description is extremely brief, with only a single word 'merge cells'. While it has no waste, it is under-specified and fails to communicate essential usage nuances. This is not concise; it is simply minimal.

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?

The tool is a write operation (merge cells) but the description provides no context about behavior, such as what happens to cell contents when merging, whether dependencies exist, or any return values. Given the absence of an output schema and the lack of operational details, the description is incomplete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (workbookId, sheetName, range) having a clear description. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics, but the schema fully covers the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description '合并单元格' (merge cells) is a direct tautology of the tool name 'excel_merge_cells'. It states the action but adds no specificity beyond the name, and does not distinguish from sibling tools. It merely restates the title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. It is entirely silent on usage conditions.

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