get_cell_display_valueReturn the formatted display string for one cell. Use when an agent needs what a user would see, not the raw numeric value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Single A1 cell address such as B3. | |
| sheetName | Yes | Existing sheet name. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| displayValue | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by explaining the display vs. raw distinction and that the result is formatted. It does not detail formatting behavior or edge cases, but for a simple read tool with strong annotations this is sufficient.
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?
Two short sentences pack the purpose and usage guidance with no filler. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies when to choose this tool.
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 simple 2-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and distinction from siblings. Nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for 'address' and 'sheetName'. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so it relies on the schema as is appropriate. Baseline of 3 is warranted.
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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'the formatted display string for one cell.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns what a user would see, not the raw numeric value, differentiating it from read_cell.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when an agent needs what a user would see') and contrasts it with not wanting the raw numeric value, implying the alternative of read_cell. However, it does not name the alternative or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes for reading, writing, exporting, and validating. Slight overlap exists between get_cell_display_value and read_cell, and between the two set_cell variants, but descriptions clarify the intended use.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_sheets, read_cell, validate_formula). This predictable naming makes the set easy to navigate.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for interacting with a WorkPaper document. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat.
Core operations for reading, writing, validating, and exporting are covered, but the surface lacks batch cell writes, cell clearing, and sheet management. These notable gaps may hinder complex editing workflows.