google_sheets_getRetrieve Google Sheets metadata and read cell values from a specified range using the spreadsheet ID and an optional A1 range.
Get spreadsheet metadata and optionally cell values from a range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | No | A1 range to also read values from, e.g. Sheet1!A1:B5. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | Spreadsheet ID (from the URL). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can optionally read cell values, but it does not describe the return format, whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or what happens if the range is invalid. For a read operation, this is a notable 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds the optional behavior. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what 'metadata' includes, how the optional range affects the response, or any edge cases. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, this is incomplete.
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 all three parameters. The description adds the context that 'range' is for reading cell values, which aligns with the schema. It does not add deeper semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('spreadsheet metadata') and adds an optional behavior ('cell values from a range'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling google_sheets_read, which likely also reads spreadsheet data.
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 implies usage: use this tool to get metadata and optionally values from a range. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over google_sheets_read or other sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.