Google Sheets and Drive MCP

by Runemal

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

create_sheet

Add a blank sheet to a Google Spreadsheet, setting the initial grid size by specifying row and column counts.

Instructions

Create one empty sheet with a bounded initial grid size.

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": {
      "spreadsheet_id": "<spreadsheet_id>",
      "sheet_name": "<sheet_name>"
    },
    "name": "create_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`row_count`	No
`sheet_name`	Yes
`column_count`	No
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'bounded' but does not clarify limits, side effects on other sheets, authorization needs, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). Significant gaps remain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short but omits critical information; it is under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and no parameter descriptions.

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?

Given the complexity (4 params, no parameter docs, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about usage and behavior. It does not adequately compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameter beyond its name, so the agent cannot infer meaning or constraints for row_count, column_count, etc.

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 verb 'create' and resource 'sheet', specifying it creates an empty sheet with a bounded initial grid size, which distinguishes it from siblings like copy_sheet or read_sheet.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_sheet, or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., existing spreadsheet). The agent receives no context for decision-making among siblings.

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