Google Sheets and Drive MCP

by Runemal

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

read_sheet

Retrieve cell values from a Google Sheet, supporting pagination via next_start_row for large datasets.

Instructions

Read a safe page of a whole sheet; use next_start_row to continue.

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": "read_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`max_rows`	No
`start_row`	No
`end_column`	No
`sheet_name`	Yes
`start_column`	No	A
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`value_render_option`	No	FORMATTED_VALUE

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

Behavior3/5

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

The description hints at pagination via 'use next_start_row to continue' and suggests a 'safe' (possibly bounded) read, but does not disclose request limits, output behavior, or read-only nature. With no annotations, the burden is higher but only partially met.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence, 13 words, efficient and front-loaded. Could include more detail without harming conciseness, but current length is appropriate.

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?

With 7 parameters, no descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial context like pagination mechanics, parameter ranges, and output format (though output schema exists, description doesn't leverage it).

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%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. It mentions 'next_start_row' which is not a parameter (actual param is start_row). No additional meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool reads a sheet, using verb 'Read' and resource 'sheet', and distinguishes from siblings like read_range by implying it reads the whole sheet in pages. However, 'safe page' is vague, slightly reducing clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_range or batch_read_ranges. Only mentions using next_start_row for continuation, but no context on when to stop or switch tools.

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