Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gws-mcp__sheets_update

Destructive

Update specific cells in a Google Sheets spreadsheet. Overwrites existing values in the specified range. 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>",
      "range": "<range>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "gws-mcp__sheets_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeYesCell range in A1 notation, e.g. "TabName!A1:B2" — use a tab name the spreadsheet actually has.
valuesYes2D array of values to write (rows of columns), e.g., [["A1","B1"],["A2","B2"]]
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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description reinforces this by stating that existing values in the specified range are overwritten. More importantly, it discloses a non-obvious coercion behavior: numeric-looking text such as '007' becomes the number 7, with concrete mitigations via value_input_option RAW or a leading apostrophe. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and overwrite semantics, then adds only the type-coercion caveat and its mitigations. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 destructive write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, overwrite behavior, and important value-interpretation edge cases. It is nearly complete, though it could be stronger by naming when to use this tool versus sibling write tools.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description still adds value by tying value_input_option RAW to a concrete workaround for preserving text like '007' and by mentioning the leading-apostrophe alternative, which is not present in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: update specific cells in a Google Sheets spreadsheet. It also clarifies that existing values in the specified range are overwritten. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as sheets_append or sheets_batch_update, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Update specific cells' implies usage for writing into an existing range, and the overwrite warning helps set expectations. However, it never states when to prefer this over sheets_append, sheets_batch_update, or sheets_clear, nor does it list prerequisites or exclusions.

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