Excel MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Excel operations: copying sheets, creating tables, describing sheets, formatting ranges, reading data, and writing data. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'excel_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., excel_copy_sheet, excel_create_table), using snake_case throughout. This predictable naming convention enhances readability and reduces cognitive load for agents.
Tool Count4/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for basic Excel operations, covering key tasks like reading, writing, formatting, and sheet management. It could benefit from additional tools for advanced features (e.g., formulas, charts), but the current set is reasonable and focused.
Completeness4/5
The tools provide solid coverage for core Excel workflows: reading and writing data, sheet management, formatting, and table creation. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking tools for formulas, charts, or cell manipulation (e.g., delete, merge), but agents can handle common tasks effectively with this surface.
Average 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 7 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 19, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide clear hints (destructive, not read-only, not idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context by implying mutation ('write'), but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like overwriting existing data, error handling, or file modification effects beyond what annotations cover. 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's overly terse, bordering on under-specified for a complex tool with 5 parameters and destructive behavior.
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's complexity (5 parameters, destructive hint, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or interactions with siblings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer usage in a rich toolset.
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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the basic action, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Write values to the Excel sheet' states the basic action (write) and resource (Excel sheet), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like excel_format_range (which also writes formatting) or excel_create_table (which creates structured data). It lacks specificity about what kind of values or operations are involved.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like excel_copy_sheet or excel_create_table. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence), exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among write-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false), which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations by implying creation of a new sheet, but doesn't detail behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., if source doesn't exist) or the open-world nature (openWorldHint: true).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Copy'), making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, destructive operation) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output (no schema provided), error conditions, or how it interacts with siblings. However, annotations cover key behavioral traits, so the description meets minimum viability without being fully comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Sheet name to be copied' for dstSheetName). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining that dstSheetName must be unique or that paths are absolute. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.
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 ('Copy') and resource ('existing sheet to a new sheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'excel_write_to_sheet' or 'excel_create_table' which might also involve sheet manipulation, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the source sheet must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot copy to an existing sheet name), or compare to siblings like 'excel_describe_sheets' for checking sheet existence first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations declare. It doesn't explain what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., whether it modifies the file), nor does it address rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about output format, error conditions, or when to use versus siblings. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description meets basic requirements but could be more complete.
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 description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'fileAbsolutePath' is fully described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the Excel file'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: 'List all sheet information of specified Excel file' - a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sheet information of specified Excel file'). It distinguishes from siblings like excel_read_sheet (which reads data) and excel_write_to_sheet (which writes data), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for metadata discovery) versus when to use siblings like excel_read_sheet (for data extraction) or excel_copy_sheet (for sheet manipulation). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, indicating it's a destructive, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, noting it applies 'style information' but doesn't elaborate on effects (e.g., overwrites existing styles, requires file access). It doesn't contradict annotations, so baseline is met with slight value addition.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Format cells') and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested styles object, destructive operation) and rich schema (100% coverage) with annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on usage, output (no output schema), or advanced behavioral traits. For a formatting tool with significant parameters, more context would improve completeness, but annotations and schema provide substantial coverage.
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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description mentions 'style information' which aligns with the 'styles' parameter but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining style object structure or usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.
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 ('Format cells') and resource ('in the Excel sheet') with the purpose ('with style information'). It distinguishes from siblings like excel_read_sheet (reading) and excel_write_to_sheet (writing data), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from excel_create_table (which might involve formatting). The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what formatting entails.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for data entry vs. formatting), or compare to siblings like excel_create_table for structured formatting. The description lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting potential side effects, but the description doesn't clarify what gets destroyed or modified (e.g., file locks, temporary data). It adds 'with pagination' as useful context beyond annotations, but misses details like rate limits or authentication needs.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Read values from Excel sheet with pagination' is front-loaded and every word earns its place by specifying action, resource, and a key behavioral trait.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations with mixed hints (destructive but not read-only), the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and pagination but lacks details on return format, error handling, or side effects, leaving gaps for a tool with potential destructive behavior.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying pagination relates to 'range', which is already covered in the schema's default note. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 ('Read values') and resource ('Excel sheet'), with 'with pagination' adding a key behavioral aspect. It distinguishes from siblings like excel_write_to_sheet (write vs. read) and excel_describe_sheets (metadata vs. values), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like excel_describe_sheets for sheet metadata or excel_copy_sheet for duplicating content. The description implies reading data but lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying a write operation ('Create'). The description adds value by specifying the resource ('Excel sheet'), but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like potential file overwrites, error handling, or Excel-specific constraints beyond what annotations provide.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an agent.
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 tool's complexity (a destructive write operation with 4 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover return values, error cases, or Excel-specific behaviors. With annotations providing safety context, it's complete enough for basic use but lacks depth.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format examples beyond 'range' or interactions between them. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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 ('Create a table') and resource ('in the Excel sheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like excel_format_range or excel_write_to_sheet, which might also modify Excel content, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like excel_format_range for structured data. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![excel-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/negokaz/excel-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/negokaz/excel-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![excel-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/negokaz/excel-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/negokaz/excel-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/negokaz/excel-mcp-server'

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