Skip to main content
Glama
nam090320251

Dynamic Excel MCP Server

by nam090320251
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool 'generate_excel' has a clear and distinct purpose focused on creating Excel files from JSON schemas.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'generate_excel' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and there are no other tools to create inconsistencies.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool for a server named 'Dynamic Excel MCP Server' feels thin and under-scoped. While the tool is feature-rich, the domain suggests operations like reading, updating, or analyzing Excel files, which are missing. This limits the server's utility for comprehensive Excel interactions.

    Completeness2/5

    The server is severely incomplete for its implied domain of dynamic Excel operations. It only supports generation from JSON schemas, lacking essential CRUD operations such as reading existing files, updating data, or performing analyses. This creates significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows involving Excel beyond initial creation.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists supported features and layout types, which adds some context about capabilities, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the tool creates a file locally or returns a download link, error handling, performance considerations, or any limitations (e.g., file size constraints). For a tool with no annotations and complex functionality, this is a significant gap.

    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 well-structured and appropriately sized, starting with a clear purpose and usage guidelines, followed by supported features and layout types. However, it includes a lengthy list of features that could be condensed or prioritized, and some sentences (e.g., the bullet points under usage) are repetitive. Overall, it is efficient but could be more streamlined.

    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?

    Given the complexity of the tool (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, features, and layouts, but lacks details on output behavior, error handling, and practical constraints. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain what is returned (e.g., file data or a link), but it does not, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that the tool 'accepts a JSON schema describing the structure, data, and formatting of the Excel file,' but it does not provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate with extra param details.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate an Excel file from a structured JSON schema.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('Excel file'), and input type ('structured JSON schema'), making it distinct and unambiguous. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed, but the purpose is specific and complete.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use this tool when the user wants to: - Create an Excel file - Export data to Excel - Generate a report/spreadsheet - Download data as .xlsx file.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, with no sibling tools, there are no alternatives to compare against, so it lacks guidance on when not to use it or what other tools might be available, preventing a perfect score.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

dynamic-excel-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

dynamic-excel-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nam090320251/dynamic-excel-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server