read_rangeRead values from a Google Sheets range using A1 notation; provide only a tab name to retrieve all data from that tab.
Reads the values of a range in A1 notation. Passing only a tab name (e.g. 'Sheet1') returns all data in that tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | A1 range, e.g. 'Sheet1!A1:D20' or 'Sheet1'. | |
| 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 disclosure burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly and the bare-tab-name expansion behavior, which is useful, but says nothing about return format, empty ranges, permissions, or large-range behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the non-obvious edge case. No wasted words.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description could disclose more about return shape or error behavior to fully equip the agent.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including A1 examples and the spreadsheetId URL-derivation hint. The description's tab-name example overlaps with schema content without adding syntax beyond it, so baseline 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 (reads), resource (range values), and format (A1 notation). The special-case behavior of passing a bare tab name is a precise, distinguishing detail that differentiates it from siblings like write_range or find_rows.
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 implied by the read semantics and the note about bare tab names, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use read_range vs alternatives like find_rows or list_tabs, nor any stated preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.