graph-excel-mcp

set_fill

Destructive

Set or clear the fill color of one or more contiguous Excel ranges in a single batch, with an optional dry run first and read-back verification to confirm the cells changed as intended.

Instructions

Set or clear the fill color of one or more contiguous ranges (non-contiguous rows = several ranges; sent in one batch). color "#FFFF00" etc., or null to clear. Verified by reading the fill back.

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>",
      "ranges": "<ranges>"
    },
    "name": "set_fill"
  }
}

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)
`color`	No
`sheet`	Yes	Worksheet name exactly as listed by resolve
`ranges`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing batch semantics for non-contiguous ranges and a read-back verification step after the write. It does not warn that setting a fill overwrites any existing fill or mention the dry-run default, which is the key behavioral nuance for a destructive tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences plus a modal fragment; every clause carries information about scope, batching, or clearing. The telegraphic middle fragment ('color "#FFFF00" etc., or null to clear') is a little clipped for a format specification but wastes no words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive, open-world write with no output schema, the definition covers scope, clearing, batching, and verification, which is a fair amount. The notable omission is the two-phase send=false dry-run gate and the approval expectation, leaving the agent dependent on the schema's send description to avoid unintended writes.

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 60%, with file, send, and sheet documented in the schema but color and ranges left bare. The description compensates well for those gaps by giving the color literal format ('#FFFF00') with null as the clear signal and by explaining that a ranges entry set may span non-contiguous rows and is dispatched as one batch.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set or clear the fill color') plus scope ('one or more contiguous ranges'), which is clearly narrower than the sibling set_format. It never names set_format or explains why an agent would pick this over that broader formatting tool, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies when to use it via 'non-contiguous rows = several ranges; sent in one batch' and 'null to clear', which tells the agent how to batch and how to remove a fill. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against set_format, and it omits the dry-run-then-approve workflow that governs whether anything is actually written.

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

Deploy Server