Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
smartsheet-mcp

smartsheet-mcp

by Kcrong
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

smartsheet_list_proofs

Retrieve proofs from a Smartsheet sheet, with options to paginate results or include all.

Instructions

List proofs on a sheet.

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": {
      "sheet_id": "<sheet_id>"
    },
    "name": "smartsheet_list_proofs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page number.
sheet_idYesSmartsheet sheet ID.
page_sizeNoResults per page.
include_allNoIf true, return all results (ignores page/page_size).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation without revealing any side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior. A simple list tool with no explicit read-only hint or safety information.

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?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no filler. However, it may be too terse for a tool with four parameters, but conciseness is maintained.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the returned list contains (e.g., proof IDs, names, status) or any other contextual details that would help an agent correctly use the tool.

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%, with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List proofs on a sheet' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (proofs on a sheet). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like smartsheet_list_proof_attachments or smartsheet_get_proof.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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