Skip to main content
Glama
hermoso-ai

Hermoso

Official

Write to a range in a Google Sheet

update_sheet
DestructiveIdempotent

Correct cells in a Google Sheet by writing values to an exact range, overwriting existing data. Read back the sheet to verify the intended values are now in place.

Instructions

CORRECT cells in a Google Sheet — write values to an exact range, overwriting whatever is there. This is the fix append_to_sheet cannot make: appending only ever adds rows at the bottom, so without this a wrong number stays wrong forever and the only "correction" is a second row contradicting the first. Pass range (e.g. "B2:C5", or "Q3 Report!B2" to name a tab — list_sheet_tabs gives the names) and values as an array of row arrays; an anchor cell like "B2" is fine and the block is written down and right from it. Writing into EMPTY cells goes straight through. Writing OVER cells that already hold values is REFUSED first, naming exactly how many filled cells would be overwritten — show the user that, get a yes, then call again with confirm:true. The result is READ BACK from the sheet, so what you report is what the sheet now holds rather than what Google accepted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeNoA1 range or anchor cell, e.g. "B2:C5", "B2", or "Q3 Report!B2" (default A1)
valuesNoarray of row arrays to write
confirmNorequired only when the target range already holds values
updatesNowrite SEVERAL disjoint ranges in one call, instead of range+values
sheetUrlNo
spreadsheetIdNo
valueInputOptionNoUSER_ENTERED (default) parses formulas, dates and numbers the way typing them would; RAW stores every value as literal text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.161

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the destructive overwrite behavior and the guarded confirmation flow: writing over filled cells is refused until the agent shows the count and calls again with confirm:true. It also reveals that the result is read back from the sheet, extending the annotations with operationally important detail.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, alternative comparison, input format, safety flow, and read-back guarantee are presented in a logical order. The rhetorical explanation of append_to_sheet's limitation directly supports tool selection rather than padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

It thoroughly covers purpose, alternatives, confirmation safety, and result verification, and it compensates for the missing output schema by explaining that values are read back from the sheet. The remaining gaps are the exact return shape and the sheetUrl/spreadsheetId target identifiers, which are conventional and partially covered by the schema.

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?

The schema already documents most parameters, and the description adds concrete examples for range formats, anchor-cell expansion, and row-array shape. However, it does not add detail for updates, sheetUrl, or spreadsheetId, so it slightly misses full semantic coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('CORRECT cells in a Google Sheet') and immediately defines the action as writing to an exact range and overwriting whatever is there. It explicitly contrasts itself with append_to_sheet, making its role unambiguous within a large sibling list.

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?

It explicitly says this is the fix append_to_sheet cannot make and explains why appending is insufficient for corrections. It also points to list_sheet_tabs for getting tab names, giving the agent concrete routing guidance.

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