mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_delete_chart

Remove a chart from a Google Sheets spreadsheet by specifying its chart and spreadsheet IDs.

Instructions

Delete a chart from the 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>",
      "chartId": "<chartId>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_delete_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chartId`	Yes	The ID of the chart to delete
`spreadsheetId`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'delete,' without noting that the deletion is permanent, whether it affects only the chart object, or what other consequences may occur.

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 with the key action and object front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool is simple and the schema covers the required parameters, but the description omits important contextual details such as permanence and whether any related data is affected. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema descriptions fully cover both parameters with clear names and types, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (delete), the object (chart), and the scope (from the spreadsheet). It distinguishes this from chart creation/update/list tools by using the verb 'delete', though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

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 tool is used when a chart needs to be removed from a spreadsheet, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related chart operations such as updating or listing charts.

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