graph-excel-mcp

rename_sheet

Destructive

Renames a worksheet while applying Excel naming rules and preventing duplicates. Formulas referencing that sheet update automatically to the new name.

Instructions

Rename a worksheet (Excel name rules, no duplicate names). Formulas that refer to it follow the new name. Verified by listing the sheets afterwards.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "sheet": "<sheet>",
      "newName": "<newName>"
    },
    "name": "rename_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes	Workbook: SharePoint URL, an alias from ~/.graph-excel/workbooks.json, or "driveId:itemId"
`send`	No	false (default) = dry run: shows what would change. true = write — only after the user approved (or a standing rule allows it)
`sheet`	Yes	Worksheet name exactly as listed by resolve
`newName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses cascading effects ('Formulas that refer to it follow the new name'), naming constraints, and a post-condition check via listing sheets. It does not mention the approval requirement for writes, but the schema's `send` field covers that.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the side effect and verification. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive rename with no output schema and partial param documentation, the description covers the important behavioral facts: naming rules, reference updates, and post-verification. The main omission is any pointer to the dry-run/approval flow, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning for `newName` by stating Excel naming rules and the no-duplicate constraint, which the schema leaves undocumented. It says nothing about `file`, `sheet`, or `send`, which the schema already explains well.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Rename a worksheet' — plus scope constraints (Excel naming rules, no duplicate names). It is clearly distinct from siblings like add_sheet or resolve, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the dry-run-versus-write workflow that governs this mutation (only the `send` schema field covers that). The only procedural hint is the terse 'Verified by listing the sheets afterwards,' which describes aftermath rather than usage selection.

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

Deploy Server