list_tabsGet all tabs in a Google Spreadsheet, including each tab's title, dimensions, and sheet ID, by supplying the spreadsheet ID or URL.
Lists the tabs of a spreadsheet with their dimensions and sheetId, plus the file title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spreadsheetId | Yes | Spreadsheet ID, or its full URL. The ID is the segment between /d/ and /edit in the URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses what the response contains (tab dimensions, sheetId, file title), but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or pagination behavior on large spreadsheets.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return payload appended economically. Nothing is wasted.
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 simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient: it compensates for the absent output schema by naming the fields returned, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. Only behavioral details like ordering or permissions are missing.
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% and the schema already explains the ID/URL format in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (lists) and resource (tabs of a spreadsheet) and even enumerates the returned fields (dimensions, sheetId, file title). It is clearly distinct from the mutating siblings (add_tab, rename_tab, delete_tab), though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-only discovery step before calling read_range or update_cell. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance tying it to those siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.