Excel MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Read'), supports two modes (live Excel vs. file-based), preserves images/charts in file mode, and defaults to returning formulas. It could improve by mentioning error handling or performance limits, but it covers essential behavior well.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured into sentences that each add value: the first states the action, the second explains parameter choices, and the third details optional behaviors. There is no wasted text, making it concise and well-organized.

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

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

Given the complexity of a read tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and behavioral aspects. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure of the output), which is a gap since there's no output schema, slightly reducing completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by explaining the 'workbook' vs. 'path' distinction and the effect of 'valuesOnly' and 'formats', but this mostly reinforces schema details rather than providing significant new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('cell formulas/values from a range'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_cells' (write vs. read) and 'format_cells' (formatting vs. reading content), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use certain parameters (e.g., use 'workbook' for open Excel, 'path' for files on disk, and set 'valuesOnly=true' for calculated values). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_excel_info' or 'execute_vba', so it doesn't fully cover sibling differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.