Skip to main content
Glama

Write to a range in a Google Sheet

update_sheet
DestructiveIdempotent

CORRECT cells in a Google Sheet — write values to an exact range, overwriting whatever is there. This is the fix append_to_sheet cannot make: appending only ever adds rows at the bottom, so without this a wrong number stays wrong forever and the only "correction" is a second row contradicting the first. Pass range (e.g. "B2:C5", or "Q3 Report!B2" to name a tab — list_sheet_tabs gives the names) and values as an array of row arrays; an anchor cell like "B2" is fine and the block is written down and right from it. Writing into EMPTY cells goes straight through. Writing OVER cells that already hold values is REFUSED first, naming exactly how many filled cells would be overwritten — show the user that, get a yes, then call again with confirm:true. The result is READ BACK from the sheet, so what you report is what the sheet now holds rather than what Google accepted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeNoA1 range or anchor cell, e.g. "B2:C5", "B2", or "Q3 Report!B2" (default A1)
valuesNoarray of row arrays to write
confirmNorequired only when the target range already holds values
updatesNowrite SEVERAL disjoint ranges in one call, instead of range+values
sheetUrlNo
spreadsheetIdNo
valueInputOptionNoUSER_ENTERED (default) parses formulas, dates and numbers the way typing them would; RAW stores every value as literal text

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds crucial behavioral context: overwriting existing cells is REFUSED first, the confirmation flow, and the fact that results are read back from the sheet. This is exactly the kind of disclosure beyond structured fields that agents need.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, differentiation, parameters, behavior, and confirmation are all covered. It front-loads the verb and resource, then flows logically. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex mutation tool with no output schema and 7 parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it covers when to use vs append, how to specify ranges and values, the confirmation guard, and the read-back guarantee. It even references list_sheet_tabs for tab names. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 71%, and the description enriches key parameters: explains range with anchor-cell examples ('B2', 'Q3 Report!B2'), clarifies values as 'array of row arrays', and explains the confirm flag's role. It does not detail sheetUrl/spreadsheetId, but these are standard identifiers and the schema provides descriptions for valueInputOption, so the added value is strong.

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

Purpose5/5

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 ('CORRECT cells in a Google Sheet — write values to an exact range, overwriting whatever is there') and immediately differentiates itself from append_to_sheet, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names append_to_sheet as the alternative and explains the exact condition that selects this tool ('This is the fix append_to_sheet cannot make'). Also points to list_sheet_tabs for tab names and details the confirmation flow (ask user, get yes, then pass confirm:true).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.

Tool Count1/5

293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.