Google Sheets and Drive MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

insert_image

Insert an image directly into a Google Sheets cell by providing an image URL. Supports fit, stretch, original size, and custom dimensions.

Instructions

Insert an in-cell image from an HTTP(S) URL using IMAGE().

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>",
      "cell": "<cell>",
      "image_url": "<image_url>"
    },
    "name": "insert_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cell`	Yes
`mode`	No	FIT
`image_url`	Yes
`width_pixels`	No
`height_pixels`	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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, error cases, or constraints (e.g., URL must return valid image, supported formats, size limits).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits necessary details. It is not excessively verbose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.

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 six parameters (three required), an output schema (not shown), and no annotation, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behaviors, return format, or parameter relationships.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the six parameters (e.g., what 'mode' does, how 'width_pixels' interacts). The agent must infer entirely from parameter names and enums.

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 'Insert' and resource 'in-cell image from an HTTP(S) URL using IMAGE()', which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (none of which deal with images).

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, nor any exclusions or context. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other tools.

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