Add a new tab to a spreadsheet (sheet, excel, workbook).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Tab name | |
| rows | No | Number of rows | |
| cells | No | Initial cells in A1 notation. Each cell: { value, format?: { bold, italic, underline, color (text hex), bgColor (background hex), fontSize, fontFamily, align, numberFormat, decimals, currencySymbol } } | |
| columns | No | Number of columns | |
| sheet_id | Yes | Sheet (workbook) ID |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It omits important details such as whether the spreadsheet must already exist, what happens if the tab name is duplicate, or any side effects. The description simply states 'Add a new tab' without revealing constraints or outcomes.
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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It wastes no words and immediately communicates the core action. The parenthetical clarification is short and harmless. It is an example of concise, purposeful writing.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (including a nested object for cells), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It lacks guidance on preconditions, return values, or how the complex 'cells' parameter integrates. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the description does not fill the contextual gaps an agent needs.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no information about parameters; it merely repeats the concept of adding a tab. Since the schema already documents each parameter well, the description does not need to compensate, but it also provides no extra semantic value.
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 and resource: 'Add a new tab to a spreadsheet.' It clearly distinguishes this from create_sheet (which creates a whole spreadsheet) and other sibling tools like update_sheet_tab or delete_sheet_tab. The parenthesis '(sheet, excel, workbook)' clarifies the general meaning of spreadsheet, adding no confusion.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing spreadsheet ID) or exclusions. The description merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and schema.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: documents, sheets, slides, and servers. Even similar operations like update_sheet and update_sheet_tab are clearly separated by scope (workbook vs tab).
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_document, delete_sheet_tab, list_slides), but there are minor deviations: 'append_to_document' vs 'append_rows'/'append_slides', and 'create_slide_presentation' vs 'list_slides' use inconsistent naming lengths and pluralization.
With 23 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3–15 range but reasonable for covering three full document-type lifecycles (documents, spreadsheets, presentations) plus server listing. No tool feels redundant.
The server provides create, read, update, delete, list, and append operations for documents, sheets, and presentations, including tab-level management for spreadsheets. Minor gaps exist like no individual slide update or search across all resource types, but the core workflows are well-covered.