mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_insert_rows

Insert rows into a Google Sheet at a specific position using spreadsheet and sheet IDs with start and end row indices.

Instructions

Insert rows at 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_insert_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

B3.2/5.0

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 behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention side effects like shifting existing rows down, impact on formatting or formulas, or that startIndex is zero-based. The behavior is non-obvious for a mutating operation.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous filler. It is front-loaded with the core intent and reads clearly.

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?

For a write operation with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as what happens at the insertion point, how many rows are inserted (implied by endIndex - startIndex), and any constraints or prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding to use the tool correctly without additional research.

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?

Schema coverage for parameters is 100% with simple descriptions like 'Starting row index (0-based)', which is adequate. However, the description does not explain the relationship between startIndex and endIndex (e.g., how many rows are inserted when endIndex is omitted or included), so no additional meaning is added.

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 (insert), the resource (rows), and the location (at a specific position). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_insert_columns or sheets_delete_rows without needing to open schemas.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use when you need to add rows without overwriting existing data' or 'use insert_columns for columns.' The agent is left to infer the appropriate context solely from the name and the sibling list.

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