mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_rename_sheet

Renames an existing sheet in a Google Spreadsheet by specifying the spreadsheet, sheet ID, and a new title.

Instructions

Rename 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>",
      "newTitle": "<newTitle>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_rename_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sheetId`	Yes	The ID of the sheet to rename
`newTitle`	Yes	New title 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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It merely states the action without mentioning any potential consequences, permissions, or changes to related data (e.g., formulas referencing the sheet name).

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?

Extremely concise: one short sentence with no unnecessary words. The essential information is conveyed efficiently and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple rename operation, the description is functionally adequate but lacks any context about return values, potential errors (e.g., duplicate sheet names), or interaction with other spreadsheet elements. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (spreadsheetId, sheetId, newTitle), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, warranting the baseline score.

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?

Clearly states the action (rename) and the target resource (an existing sheet). Though it does not differentiate from sibling tools that operate on sheets, the specific verb 'rename' makes the purpose distinct from duplicate, move, or delete operations.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sheets_duplicate_sheet or sheets_move_sheet. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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