google-workspace-mcp-advanced

create_spreadsheet_comment

Add a comment to a Google Spreadsheet by supplying the spreadsheet ID, comment content, and user email.

Instructions

Create a new comment on a Google Spreadsheet.

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": {
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>",
      "spreadsheet_id": "<spreadsheet_id>",
      "comment_content": "<comment_content>"
    },
    "name": "create_spreadsheet_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_google_email`	Yes
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`comment_content`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.10Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or how the comment is associated with the user_google_email parameter. It lacks the detail expected for a mutation tool.

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, non-verbose sentence that is easy to read, but it is under-specified. While it earns its place, the lack of additional context makes it minimally adequate rather than well-structured.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description fails to provide essential context such as auth requirements, comment placement, or parameter semantics. For a tool with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 does not explain any of the three required parameters (user_google_email, spreadsheet_id, comment_content). It provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new comment on a Google Spreadsheet'), clearly distinguishing it from comment-related actions on documents or presentations. It directly indicates the tool's function and target platform.

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings like reply_to_spreadsheet_comment or read_spreadsheet_comments. It does not mention prerequisites such as Google authentication or whether this creates top-level comments only.

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

Deploy Server