mcp-google-sheets-server

sheets_share

Share a Google Sheet with a specific email address, assigning a role (viewer, editor, or owner) and optional message to control access.

Instructions

Share Google Sheets with specific permissions

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>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No	Role for the user	reader
`email`	Yes	Email address to share with
`message`	No	Optional message to include in the sharing email
`spreadsheetId`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavior. It only says 'Share... with specific permissions' but does not disclose potential side effects such as email notifications, permission replacement, or access revocation implications. This lack of transparency warrants a 2.

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 redundancy, earning a 5.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits details about success/failure behavior. Considering the absence of annotations, a 3 seems fair.

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?

All four parameters are described in the schema with brief explanations, providing basic coverage. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so a 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 action ('Share') and the resource ('Google Sheets') along with the capability ('specific permissions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like sheets_get_data or sheets_update_data, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sharing or permission-related tools, nor any mention of alternatives. The description simply states the action without contextual direction, so a 2.

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