Bind table cells to form fields for automatic value synchronization. Updates cell content whenever the linked form field changes.
将表格单元格绑定到表单字段。绑定后单元格的值会随表单字段自动更新。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cellKey | Yes | 单元格标识，如 "A1" 或 "0_0"（行列索引） | |
| bindType | Yes | 绑定类型: formField=绑定表单字段, tableData=绑定表格循环数据 | |
| fieldPath | Yes | 绑定的表单字段路径，如 "sampleNo" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the cell value updates automatically after binding, which is useful, but it omits other behavioral details such as whether existing bindings are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on related fields. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and effect. There is no redundant wording, and it is appropriately brief for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The description mentions only binding to form fields, but the schema also supports binding to table loop data (bindType 'tableData'). This omission could mislead an agent into thinking the tool only handles form fields. Additionally, there is no mention of return values, error conditions, or behavior when a cell is already bound. Given the moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete.
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 all three parameters (cellKey, bindType, fieldPath) are documented in the schema. The description adds marginal context by describing the binding effect but does not elaborate on parameter formats or edge cases beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for full 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 action (bind table cell to form field) and the effect (cell value updates automatically). It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool bind_cell_loop, though the schema enum distinguishes the bindType. It is clear enough to understand the primary purpose.
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 like bind_cell_loop or set_spreadsheet_cell. It does not mention prerequisites, situations where binding is appropriate, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the schema alone, which is not sufficient for correct tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.