mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_delete_rows

Deletes a range of rows from a Google Sheet by specifying the starting row index and optional end index.

Instructions

Delete rows from a specific position

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>",
      "startIndex": "<startIndex>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_delete_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sheetId`	Yes	The ID of the sheet
`endIndex`	No	Ending row index (0-based)
`startIndex`	Yes	Starting row index (0-based)
`spreadsheetId`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations and the description fails to mention that the deletion is permanent, shifts subsequent rows up, or that it affects data and formatting. Given the complete absence of behavioral disclosure, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured for its brevity, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

The description lacks essential context such as the permanent nature of the deletion, the behavior of endIndex (inclusive/exclusive, optional), and any side effects on the spreadsheet. With no output schema or annotations, this leaves the agent under-informed for a destructive operation.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), but those descriptions are minimal and almost tautological (e.g., 'The ID of the sheet'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Delete rows from a specific position' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (rows), and it distinguishes itself from column operations. However, 'from a specific position' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about the range being deleted.

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 similar tools like sheets_delete_columns or sheets_insert_rows. The description does not mention optionality of endIndex or any context for deleting rows.

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