Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gws-mcp__sheets_append

Append rows to the end of a Google Sheets spreadsheet. Numeric-looking text is typed the way the Sheets UI types it: '007' is stored as the number 7 and comes back as 7. To keep such a value as text, pass value_input_option RAW for the call, or put a leading apostrophe on that one value.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "spreadsheet_id": "<spreadsheet_id>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "gws-mcp__sheets_append"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeNoTarget range naming the tab to append to, e.g. "TabName!A1". When omitted, "Sheet1!A1" is sent, which only works while the spreadsheet still has a tab literally named Sheet1 — pass the range explicitly otherwise.
valuesYes2D array of rows to append, e.g., [["val1","val2"],["val3","val4"]]
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
parse_formulasNoAllow values to be stored as live formulas. Default false, which writes a leading = or + literally. Only set true when the caller explicitly asked for a formula — never for text taken from email, documents, or the web.
spreadsheet_idYesThe spreadsheet ID
value_input_optionNoHow Sheets interprets the values. USER_ENTERED (default) parses numbers, dates and booleans as typing them would, with formula-prefixed text kept inert unless parse_formulas is set. RAW stores every value verbatim as text: formulas never evaluate, but numbers arrive as text and break SUM/charts — use it only when literal-text semantics are the point.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the non-obvious type-coercion behavior ('007' becomes 7) and two ways to defeat it. That is exactly the kind of data-integrity trap an agent would otherwise fall into. It does not mention auth, quotas, or what a successful call returns, keeping it off a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the highest-risk gotcha. Every sentence carries distinct information: what it does, what surprising thing happens, and how to prevent it.

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?

For a non-destructive append with full schema documentation and no output schema, this covers the decision-relevant behavior well. The only omissions are any hint about the response (e.g., the updated range) and the fact that appends land after existing data in the target tab.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining the practical consequence of value_input_option RAW (numbers arrive as text and break SUM/charts) and by offering a per-cell apostrophe escape that appears nowhere in the schema. It does not touch spreadsheet_id, account, or values, but those are self-evident or already well-documented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Append rows to the end of a Google Sheets spreadsheet,' and the 'to the end' qualifier separates it in spirit from sheets_update and sheets_batch_update. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the agent must still infer that overwrite-style writes live elsewhere.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for choosing between USER_ENTERED and RAW, and for when the leading apostrophe escape is needed. What it never states is when to pick this tool over sheets_update, sheets_batch_update, or sheets_format_table, so tool-selection guidance is only implied by the word 'append'.

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

All DataToRAG toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources