List all spreadsheets (sheets, excel, workbooks) with their tab metadata (no cell data). Use this when asked to list, find, or search spreadsheets, workbooks, tables, or tabular data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 50) | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| server_id | No | Filter by server ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the return scope ('tab metadata') and explicitly excludes 'cell data,' which is an important behavioral trait. However, it does not mention pagination or any other side effects, though for a list operation these omissions are minor.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and every phrase adds value ('no cell data' prevents misinterpretation). No redundancy or fluff.
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 list operation with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core behavior and use case. It could be more complete by mentioning the return structure (e.g., array of spreadsheet objects with tabs), but the mention of tab metadata gives sufficient context.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, despite referencing search/find use cases that rely on the filter-like parameters.
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 'List all spreadsheets' with a specific resource and scope ('sheets, excel, workbooks'). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing tab metadata and explicitly excluding cell data, setting it apart from list_documents and list_slides.
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?
Provides explicit guidance with 'Use this when asked to list, find, or search spreadsheets, workbooks, tables, or tabular data.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: document, sheet, tab, or presentation. Even similar operations like append_rows, append_slides, and append_to_document are clearly differentiated by their intended target.
The naming follows a predictable verb_noun pattern with create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and append_. Minor deviations like append_to_document (uses 'to') and the use of 'slide_presentation' vs 'slides' keep it from being perfectly uniform.
At 23 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range, but each tool serves a clear purpose across three resource types (documents, sheets, slides). The volume is justified by supporting tab-level operations and append functionality.
The server provides full CRUD plus listing for each resource type, along with tab management and append operations. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of a direct 'set cell value' operation and no slide reorder or delete individual slide, but core workflows are well covered.