Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Sheets and Drive MCP

Google Sheets and Drive MCP

by Runemal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

write_range

Write a rectangular matrix of values to a specified A1 range in a Google Sheet, supporting raw or user-entered input.

Instructions

Write a rectangular values matrix to an A1 range.

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>",
      "range": "<range>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "write_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeYes
valuesYes
spreadsheet_idYes
value_input_optionNoUSER_ENTERED

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'write', implying mutation, but does not disclose effects like overwriting, permissions, or limitations. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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 4 parameters, required fields, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details on return values, behavioral effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), and context relative to siblings. For a mutation tool without annotations, completeness is lacking.

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%, and the description adds minimal context. It clarifies that 'values' is a rectangular matrix and 'range' is in A1 notation, but fails to explain 'spreadsheet_id' or the 'value_input_option' enum. Given the low coverage, the description does not adequately compensate.

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 'Write a rectangular values matrix to an A1 range' clearly states the action (write), the resource (rectangular values matrix), and the target (A1 range). It distinguishes from siblings like 'batch_write_ranges' or 'append_rows' by specifying 'rectangular matrix' and 'A1 range'.

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. Siblings include 'batch_write_ranges', 'append_rows', and others, but the description does not mention when to prefer this tool or exclusions. The agent has no context for choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools