Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-sheets-mcp

google-sheets-mcp

by AurelioCecchi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Add a tab

add_tab

Create a new tab in an existing Google spreadsheet by providing the spreadsheet ID and tab title, enabling organized sheet management.

Instructions

Adds a new tab to an existing spreadsheet.

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": {
      "spreadsheetId": "<spreadsheetId>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "add_tab"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesName of the new tab.
spreadsheetIdYesSpreadsheet ID, or its full URL. The ID is the segment between /d/ and /edit in the URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the call fails on duplicate tab names, what permissions are required, whether the new tab's ID is returned, or what happens to a spreadsheet that already has many tabs — all meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than being a structural flaw.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: permission requirements, failure modes, and result shape are all unaddressed. Only the basic purpose is covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both 'title' and 'spreadsheetId' (including the URL/ID parsing hint), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds a new tab') with the scope qualifier 'to an existing spreadsheet'. It is clearly distinguishable from create_spreadsheet or rename_tab in intent, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus rename_tab, create_spreadsheet, or delete_tab, and no prerequisites (e.g., the spreadsheet must already exist and be writable). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools