mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_merge_cells

Merge cells in a specified range of a Google Sheets spreadsheet. Choose merge type (all, columns, or rows) for the given range.

Instructions

Merge cells in a range

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>",
      "range": "<range>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_merge_cells"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`range`	Yes	The range to merge (e.g., A1:C1)
`mergeType`	No	Type of merge operation	MERGE_ALL
`spreadsheetId`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description gives no information about side effects, such as data loss from merging (only the top-left value is kept), irreversibility, or effects on formatting. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 important context such as the behavior of different merge types (e.g., MERGE_ALL vs MERGE_ROWS), potential data loss, and any prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, it is still minimal and incomplete.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters, and the tool description adds no extra context or clarifications. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 clearly states the tool merges cells in a range, using a specific verb and object. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like sheets_batch_update or sheets_format_cells, though it could be more explicit about the merging behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. There is no mention of when merging is appropriate or how it differs from related operations like batch updates or formatting.

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