mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_copy_to

Copy a sheet from one spreadsheet to another using source and destination spreadsheet IDs.

Instructions

Copy a sheet to another spreadsheet

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": {
      "spreadsheetId": "<spreadsheetId>",
      "sheetId": "<sheetId>",
      "destinationSpreadsheetId": "<destinationSpreadsheetId>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_copy_to"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sheetId`	Yes	The ID of the sheet to copy
`spreadsheetId`	Yes	The ID of the source spreadsheet
`destinationSpreadsheetId`	Yes	The ID of the destination spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It does not mention whether the source sheet is modified, if a copy is created in the destination, or any side effects. The operation's non-destructive nature is implied but not stated, and no return behavior is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential operation without unnecessary elaboration. It is well-structured and free of redundant content.

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 copy operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not mention return values or side effects, but given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the task, the information provided is adequate and no critical gaps are apparent.

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?

All three parameters are covered by the schema with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. However, the descriptions merely restate the parameter names ('The ID of the sheet to copy') without adding significant meaning. Since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (copy), the resource (a sheet), and the target (another spreadsheet). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'sheets_duplicate_sheet' (which copies within the same spreadsheet) and 'sheets_move_sheet'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case (copying across spreadsheets) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools. While the purpose is clear, there is no direct 'use this when' guidance, leaving some inference required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.