mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_move_sheet

Move a sheet to a new position within a spreadsheet by setting its index.

Instructions

Move a sheet to a different position in 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>",
      "sheetId": "<sheetId>",
      "newIndex": "<newIndex>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_move_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sheetId`	Yes	The ID of the sheet to move
`newIndex`	Yes	New position index for the sheet
`spreadsheetId`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the operation (moving a sheet to a new position), which is straightforward and does not involve hidden side effects like data deletion. However, it does not mention any limitations or consequences (e.g., how references are affected), so a slight deduction is warranted.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured, with all necessary information included without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. No additional context about return values or edge cases is needed for a basic move 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 schema covers all three parameters (spreadsheetId, sheetId, newIndex) with descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Move a sheet') and the resource ('spreadsheet'), making it distinct from sibling tools like rename or delete sheet. The verb 'move' and target 'sheet position' are specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the action is self-explanatory. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or how it differs from other sheet operations, so some inference is required.

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