mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_create_chart

Create a chart in a Google Sheets spreadsheet from a specified data range, with options for chart type, title, and placement.

Instructions

Create various types of charts in Google Sheets

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>",
      "chartType": "<chartType>",
      "dataRange": "<dataRange>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_create_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Title of the chart
`position`	No	Position where to place the chart (overlayPosition or position)
`chartType`	Yes	Type of chart to create
`dataRange`	Yes	Range containing the data for the chart
`spreadsheetId`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing charts. It only states the action 'create charts', which is insufficient for transparency about the operation's impact.

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 without redundancy. It efficiently states the purpose and action, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a simple create action but lacks details about the return value, success/error behavior, or any constraints. Given the existence of sibling tools, more context would help an agent choose correctly, but the description is not misleading.

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 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The descriptions are minimal but present, providing basic type and purpose. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage, though it doesn't add extra semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates charts in Google Sheets, indicating the primary action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'sheets_create_chart_from_table', which also creates charts, so it lacks explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheets_create_chart_from_table or when a specific chart type is appropriate. The description only states the action without context.

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