Read values from any spreadsheet range. Choose formatted, unformatted, or formula output to retrieve data as needed.
Read values from a spreadsheet range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | A1 notation range (e.g. "Sheet1!A1:D10") | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | The spreadsheet ID | |
| majorDimension | No | ROWS or COLUMNS | |
| valueRenderOption | No | FORMATTED_VALUE, UNFORMATTED_VALUE, or FORMULA |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it reads values from a range, which is consistent with annotations but does not provide additional behavioral context such as response format or pagination. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately short with no wasted words, though it could have added a small amount of contextual detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with annotations covering safety and a complete schema, the description is sufficient. There is no output schema, so return values need not be described. Minor gaps like how majorDimension affects output are already covered by the schema. The description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('read') and resource ('values from a spreadsheet range'), which distinguishes it from write operations like sheets_values_update and sheets_values_append. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sheets_get, which likely retrieves spreadsheet metadata, so the differentiation from that sibling is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. The description does not mention that it is for reading only, nor does it reference siblings like sheets_get or the update/append tools. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.