LibreOffice MCP Tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a write operation ('Set multiple cell values'), implying mutation, but lacks critical details: whether it overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid ranges), or returns confirmation. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the action and a key requirement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., returns confirmation, updates in real-time) or failure, nor does it cover behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects. Given the complexity of modifying spreadsheet data, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

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 four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions '2D array of values matching the range,' which aligns with the 'values' parameter description in the schema but doesn't provide additional context like formatting examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Set multiple cell values') and resource ('in a spreadsheet'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spreadsheet_set_cell' (which presumably sets a single cell) or 'document_replace_text' (which modifies text documents rather than spreadsheets), preventing a perfect score.

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

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 sibling tools like 'spreadsheet_set_cell' for single-cell updates or 'document_replace_text' for text documents, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document via 'document_open') or exclusions (e.g., not for read-only operations).

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