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

google-sheets-mcp

by AurelioCecchi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create a spreadsheet

create_spreadsheet

Creates a new Google Sheets spreadsheet in the user's Drive, optionally setting tab names, and returns its ID and URL.

Instructions

Creates a new spreadsheet in the user's Drive and returns its ID and URL.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_spreadsheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tabsNoNames of the tabs to create. Defaults to a single 'Sheet1'.
titleYesTitle of the new file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return value (ID and URL) and the location (user's Drive), which goes beyond the schema, but omits anything about permissions/scopes required or side effects of creating a file.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and then the return value. Appropriate for a two-parameter tool.

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 simple creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and explicitly names what is returned (ID and URL). Only minor gaps remain, such as required auth scope.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both the title and tabs parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or default details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Creates) and resource (a new spreadsheet in the user's Drive), which is clear and distinguishable from the range/tab manipulation siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the create-vs-modify distinction is inherent in the verb.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_tab for adding tabs to an existing file. An agent must infer that this is the entry point for new files.

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