google_forms_export_responsesAppend Google Forms responses as headers and rows to a chosen spreadsheet tab for consolidated review and analysis.
Append form responses (headers + rows) to a spreadsheet tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formId | Yes | Form ID. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| sheetName | No | Tab name (default Sheet1). | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | Destination spreadsheet ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Append' usefully implies existing data is preserved, but the description is silent on permissions/auth needs, whether the destination tab is created if missing, rate limits, and how many responses are written. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and destination. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for a write tool rather than padded.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description should explain prerequisites, destination-tab behavior, and what the append produces. It covers only the bare action, leaving key operational details unstated.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents formId, account, sheetName (default Sheet1), and spreadsheetId. The description adds only that rows include headers, which is marginal beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Append'), resource ('form responses'), and destination ('spreadsheet tab'), with the parenthetical '(headers + rows)' clarifying output shape. It is distinguishable from google_forms_responses (which reads responses) but does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as calling google_forms_responses plus google_sheets_append separately. The agent must infer the appropriate scenario entirely from the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.