Append rows to a Google Sheets spreadsheet by providing spreadsheet ID and values, using your own OAuth credentials.
Google Sheets append rows (BYOK Google OAuth). Append [[col1,col2]] to spreadsheetId. No hosted sync.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | No | optional A1 range e.g. Sheet1!A1 | |
| values | Yes | rows to append [[a,b],[c,d]] | |
| sheet_name | No | tab name default Sheet1 | |
| spreadsheet_id | Yes | spreadsheetId from Sheets URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the authentication model (BYOK Google OAuth) and the 'No hosted sync' behavior, which is useful. However, it does not explain mutation effects, error behavior, response format, or what happens when values exceed the provided range.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the key operation and auth model. Minor redundancy exists between 'Append [[col1,col2]] to spreadsheetId' and the schema's values/spreadsheet_id fields, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers all parameter details)Skip no output schema is provided, so response behavior is unexplained. The description gives the essential operation and auth/sync context, but lacks details about return values, error cases, rate limits, or how the optional range parameter behaves during append.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats spreadsheetId and the values array format but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify the 'range' parameter or how it interacts with appending.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('append rows' to Google Sheets) and includes the value format [[col1,col2]]. It clearly identifies the core operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state what it does not do (e.g., overwrite/update).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of preconditions such as whether the spreadsheet must already exist or whether the BYOK OAuth scope needs specific permissions. The 'No hosted sync' comment hints at a limitation but is not framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.