Skip to main content
Glama
logisky

logisheets-mcp

list_violations

Read-only

Scan a spreadsheet for cells failing validation rules, duplicate row keys, and broken or stale pivot tables. Use it to identify untrustworthy data before quoting numbers.

Instructions

Scan validation shadow cells and return every cell whose validation formula currently evaluates FALSE. Validation is advisory — the cell still holds its value, but the host UI renders a warning marker and you should treat it as "something the user/AI got wrong".

A field's rule is what its DECLARATION implies — required, unique, enum membership, reference existence — ANDed with whatever rule its author wrote. rule in the output names the declaration rather than quoting the generated formula, because the generated one is not something anyone typed. So a field with no rule text of its own can still appear here, which is the point: before the engine derived these, a required-but-empty cell raised nothing at all.

Also returns duplicate_keys: blocks where two records carry the same row key. That is not an advisory rule but a broken address — BLOCKREF resolves a key to the FIRST matching record, so the others are unreachable and every aggregate over the block double-counts, silently and without an error anywhere. The engine refuses to create a duplicate, so anything reported here came in with the file. Fix it by giving one of the records a distinct key before trusting any total over that block.

Also returns pivots_needing_attention. A pivot fails in a way no validation rule can see: stale means its numbers are each correct while whole groups are MISSING, and broken means its recipe stopped resolving so every cell reads 0 rather than erroring. Neither shows up as a red cell anywhere. Treat a broken pivot's numbers as unusable and fix the recipe; refresh a stale one before quoting any total from it.

Use this when answering 'why is something red?', 'what's broken after my last edit?', or before quoting any number you did not just compute yourself. It is the one call that answers 'is anything here untrustworthy' — the alternative is describe_block on every block, which is easy to skip and easy to forget.

Filters compose: omit both block and sheet to scan the whole workbook; pass either to narrow.

Pull-based on purpose: the LLM is turn-based, polling at decision points is cheaper than maintaining a live subscription. The host UI has its own per-cell push subscription for canvas warning markers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blockNoBlock ref name. Omit to scan all blocks.
limitNo
sheetNoSheet name. Omit to scan all sheets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds deep behavioral context: advisory nature of validation, duplicate_keys as broken addresses with silent double-counting, pivot stale/broken distinctions, and pull-based rationale. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but front-loaded with purpose and each paragraph adds substantive value (validation semantics, duplicate_keys, pivots, usage, filters, rationale). It is structured and not repetitive, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description fully explains all returned components (validation violations, duplicate_keys, pivots_needing_attention) with their semantics and implications. It also covers filter behavior and when to call, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% (block and sheet have descriptions; limit does not). The description clarifies how block and sheet compose ('omit both... pass either to narrow'), adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not describe limit, but that is minor given its default and bounds.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Scan validation shadow cells and return every cell whose validation formula currently evaluates FALSE.' It also names the alternative (describe_block) and clarifies it is the one call for trustworthiness, distinguishing it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'why is something red?', 'what's broken after my last edit?', or before quoting any number not just computed. It contrasts with describe_block and explains why it's the right choice.

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