LibreOffice MCP Tools

spreadsheet_list_sheets

Retrieve sheet names, row counts, and column counts from a spreadsheet document to analyze its structure and contents.

Instructions

List all sheets in a spreadsheet with their names, row counts, and column counts.

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": {
      "docId": "<docId>"
    },
    "name": "spreadsheet_list_sheets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`docId`	Yes	Document handle returned by document_open

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 describes a read-only operation ('List'), but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external resources.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, which are important for a tool without annotations. This results in a score of 3, indicating it's viable but has clear gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'docId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all sheets in a spreadsheet'), specifying what information is returned ('names, row counts, and column counts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spreadsheet_get_range' or 'spreadsheet_add_sheet', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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., needing a document handle from 'document_open'), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'spreadsheet_get_range' for specific data retrieval.

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