google_sheets_readRead cell values from a Google Sheets range and return them as rows of strings, enabling quick access to spreadsheet data through natural language queries.
Read cell values from a range as rows of strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | A1 notation, e.g. Sheet1!A1:C10. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | Spreadsheet ID. | |
| majorDimension | No | Read direction (default ROWS). |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool does, not any behavioral traits such as read-only semantics, how empty cells are represented, whether formulas or values are returned, or any auth/permission requirements. This is a minimal disclosure.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise with no filler. It could have added a bit more behavioral context, but as a concise statement it is effective.
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 tool, the description covers the basic purpose and output format, and the schema handles parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without information on edge cases (e.g., empty cells, range formatting) or how results are structured beyond 'rows of strings', so it is minimally complete.
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 four parameters, including A1 notation, account nickname, spreadsheet ID, and majorDimension. The description's mention of 'rows of strings' hints at the majorDimension default but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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 action ('Read cell values from a range') and even specifies the output format ('as rows of strings'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from google_sheets_get, which might also be a read operation, but the emphasis on range-based cell values is reasonably distinguishing.
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 sibling list contains google_sheets_get, google_sheets_write, and google_sheets_append, but the description does not mention when this tool is the right choice, when it is not, or what the alternatives are.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.