xlsx-tools-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

insert_rows

Add blank rows to an Excel .xlsx sheet at a specified row, shifting existing rows down. Use to make space for new data before writing.

Instructions

Insert blank rows, shifting existing rows down.

Set recalculate=False to skip the LibreOffice recompute (e.g. for structurally complex workbooks you don't want round-tripped).

Args: path: Path to the .xlsx file, or the name of a preloaded file. Omit if only one file is configured. sheet: Sheet name. start_row: 1-based row index to insert before. count: Number of rows to insert. recalculate: Run the LibreOffice recompute pass after saving.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`count`	No
`sheet`	Yes
`backup`	No
`start_row`	Yes
`recalculate`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0Oct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / backup

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Backup"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state the key side effect (rows shift down) and that a LibreOffice recompute pass runs by default, plus the consequence of skipping it (unrecomputed formulas). It does not disclose backup behavior, atomicity, or the return value, but it goes well beyond a bare verb.

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?

Front-loads the action and side effect, then gives a key usage note, then the Args list. Reasonably tight, though the recalculate note is a bit long and repeats information already implied by the parameter name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core mutation semantics plus the recompute tradeoff. The omission of the backup parameter and any mention of permission or undo behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents path, sheet, start_row (1-based), count (default 1 implied), and recalculate. However, the backup parameter present in the schema is never mentioned in the description, leaving one of six parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (insert) and resource (rows) plus the side effect of shifting existing rows down. This distinguishes it from insert_columns and delete_rows in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The recalculate=False guidance is a form of usage guidance for one parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing vs. append_rows or write_cells. The user must infer that this is for structural insertion rather than appending.

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