Skip to main content
Glama

atlas_sheets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists project spreadsheets and their worksheet tab names through a read-only metadata lookup, so you can discover valid sheet IDs and tabs before updating or appending data.

Instructions

List all spreadsheets bound to the project along with their worksheet tab names.

Takes no parameters. Call this tool before `atlas_sheet_update` or `atlas_sheet_append`
whenever you need to discover the exact `sheet` name/ID or valid `tab` names.

Behavior & Output:
- Read-only metadata lookup; returns spreadsheet and tab names without dumping cell contents.
- Returns JSON `{spreadsheets: [{name, id, tabs: [...]}]}` or `{spreadsheets: [], hint: "..."}`
  when no spreadsheet has been synced yet.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying it is a metadata-only lookup that does not dump cell contents, and by describing the empty-state response with a hint string. It does not discuss scoping (which project) or sync freshness beyond the 'not yet synced' case.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a routing instruction, then a labeled 'Behavior & Output' block. Every line carries information; nothing is padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, read-only semantics and the empty-state case. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no parameters', leaving no room for the agent to invent arguments.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: lists spreadsheets bound to the project plus their worksheet tab names. Combined with the pre-call routing to atlas_sheet_update/atlas_sheet_append, an agent can distinguish it from sibling lookup tools like atlas_where or atlas_outline without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to call this before atlas_sheet_update or atlas_sheet_append whenever the exact sheet name/ID or valid tab names are unknown, naming both alternatives and the selecting condition. Also states it takes no parameters, removing any setup ambiguity.

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