Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Excel MCP Server

Excel MCP Server

by mort-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

rename_sheet

Rename a worksheet in an Excel workbook by providing the current name and the desired new name.

Instructions

Rename a worksheet.

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": {
      "workbook_path": "<workbook_path>",
      "old_name": "<old_name>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workbook_pathYesPath to the Excel workbook
old_nameYesCurrent name of the worksheet
new_nameYesNew name for the worksheet

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'rename,' implying modification, but omits whether references are updated, if permissions are required, or if the operation has side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

At three words, the description is extremely concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but lacks context, making it under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values are covered, but other aspects are missing: error conditions (e.g., sheet not found, name conflict), irreversibility, and differentiation from siblings. The description is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 clearly states the action ('Rename') and resource ('a worksheet'), making the basic purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_sheet or delete_sheet. However, it is minimal and could be more specific about the context (e.g., Excel workbook).

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 (e.g., copy_sheet, create_sheet). There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The agent gets no help in deciding when rename is appropriate.

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