Skip to main content
Glama
ruriazz

xlsx-tools-mcp

by ruriazz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

unmerge_cells

Undo a cell merge in an .xlsx file, splitting a specified range back into separate cells for individual editing.

Instructions

Undo a merge on a range of cells.

Args: path: Path to the .xlsx file, or the name of a preloaded file. Omit if only one file is configured. sheet: Sheet name. cell_range: A1-style range that was previously merged.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
sheetYes
backupNo
cell_rangeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / backup
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Backup"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It signals a mutation (undoing a merge) but says nothing about whether existing content in the merged range is preserved, what happens if the range is not merged, permissions, or reversibility.

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?

One-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args block; front-loaded and free of filler. Slightly verbose in the args prose but every line adds meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core params are covered. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the absence of any error/reversibility guidance and the missing backup param leave real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents path (including the preloaded-file case and the omit-if-single-file rule), sheet, and cell_range in useful detail, but the fourth parameter, backup, is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Undo a merge on a range of cells"), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling merge_cells. An agent knows exactly what this does without reading the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the phrase "previously merged," but the description never states when to use it versus merge_cells, nor any precondition (e.g., the range must currently be merged). No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools