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

office-mcp-server

by jiahuidegit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

excel_write_data

Populate Excel worksheets with user-defined headers and data rows, supporting optional styling, filters, and fixed header rows.

Instructions

写入表格数据

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>",
      "headers": "<headers>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "excel_write_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYes数据行
styleNo表格样式
headersYes表头
sheetNameYes工作表名称
startCellNo起始单元格，默认A1
autoFilterNo是否添加筛选
workbookIdYes工作簿ID
freezeHeaderNo是否冻结首行

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether existing data is overwritten, how the sheet is selected, or what happens on error. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short phrase, making it front-loaded but under-specified. It is concise but sacrifices necessary information, so it does not serve as a model of effective brevity.

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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain behavior such as overwriting, error handling, return values, or interaction with existing sheet content. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with all 8 parameters documented, so the description need not repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 applies; the description itself adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 'Write table data' uses a specific verb (write) and identifies the resource (table data), making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly mention Excel or worksheet, so it does not differentiate from sibling tools like excel_add_sheet or excel_add_formula.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or any exclusion criteria.

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