Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Galgame MCP

Galgame MCP

by YeXuanHs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

vnt_google_docs_list_sheets

List sheet titles from a Google Spreadsheet via the Sheets API. Identify all available sheets for read-only access to streamline your data retrieval.

Instructions

List sheet titles in a Google Spreadsheet (Sheets API, read-only).

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>"
    },
    "name": "vnt_google_docs_list_sheets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNoGoogle API key (or GOOGLE_API_KEY env)
spreadsheet_idYes
service_accountNoPath to google-service-account.json

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the important read-only nature, but lacks detail on authentication requirements, error behavior, or return format. As a simple read operation, the gap is moderate.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and includes useful context (Sheets API, read-only). Zero fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and read-only, but there is no output schema or description of the return value. The description does not specify whether the output is an array, a formatted list, or includes any metadata. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 67%, so most parameters are documented. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides; it does not elaborate on spreadsheet_id format or the relationship between api_key and service_account. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('sheet titles in a Google Spreadsheet'), and notes it uses the Sheets API in a read-only capacity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vnt_google_docs_fetch or line stats tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for discovering sheet titles but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of use cases like 'before fetching specific cells' or comparisons to vnt_google_docs_fetch.

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