mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_duplicate_sheet

Duplicate an existing sheet in a Google spreadsheet by supplying the spreadsheet ID and sheet ID. Set an optional new title for the copied sheet.

Instructions

Duplicate an existing 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": {
      "spreadsheetId": "<spreadsheetId>",
      "sheetId": "<sheetId>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_duplicate_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sheetId`	Yes	The ID of the sheet to duplicate
`newTitle`	No	Title for the duplicated sheet
`spreadsheetId`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description implies creating a copy but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the original sheet is modified, or any permissions required. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide these details.

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 no redundant words. It is appropriately brief for the simple action described.

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 is minimal and does not explain the exact behavior of duplication (e.g., whether formatting is copied) or the relationship to similar tools like 'sheets_copy_to' or 'sheets_create_sheet'. This lack of context may leave an agent uncertain about when to use this 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?

The schema descriptions for the three parameters (sheetId, newTitle, spreadsheetId) are self-explanatory and cover all fields. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the parameter names.

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 states the action 'duplicate' and the resource 'sheet' clearly, but it does not specify the scope (e.g., within the same spreadsheet) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sheets_copy_to'. However, the core purpose is understandable.

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 usage conditions or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not indicate when to prefer this tool over others, such as when duplicating within the same spreadsheet vs. copying to another location.

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