workspace.sheets.get_metadataRetrieve a spreadsheet’s title, sheet tabs, and grid sizes to inspect its structure before reading or updating data.
Fetch spreadsheet metadata (title, sheet tabs, grid sizes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spreadsheet_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds nothing beyond the name: no confirmation that it is read-only, no auth/scope requirement, no behavior on an invalid or inaccessible spreadsheet_id. Only the field list gives any behavioral hint.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the payload detail immediately after. No filler; slightly too terse to be exemplary.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema defining the return shape, the description is close to sufficient for correct invocation. It still leaves the ID format and access requirements unstated, which is a real gap even at this low complexity.
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 0% and the description never mentions the single required parameter, so it doesn't clarify whether spreadsheet_id is a bare ID, a URL, or how to obtain it. The output schema covers return values, but the input side is entirely undocumented.
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?
Specific verb ("Fetch") plus resource ("spreadsheet metadata") with the returned fields enumerated in parentheses, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't differentiate from nearby siblings like workspace.sheets.read_range or workspace.drive.list_files, hence 4 rather than 5.
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 statement of when to use this versus read_range, create, or write_range, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The discovery use case (find sheet tabs before reading a range) is only inferable from the returned-fields list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.