Query the current state of spreadsheet data using a query string.
Query sheets state.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"q": "<q>"
},
"name": "sheets_query"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Query sheets state', omitting crucial details such as read-only nature, side effects, access requirements, or output behavior. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 extremely short (three words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. While it is front-loaded, it lacks necessary details to be useful.
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 the tool has one required parameter and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'sheets state' means, the expected query format, or what the tool returns, leaving major gaps for the agent.
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?
The input schema has one parameter 'q' with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain 'q' at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 'Query sheets state' is largely tautological with the tool name 'sheets_query'. It adds the word 'state' but fails to specify what 'state' refers to or how it differs from sibling tools like 'sheets', 'sheets_session', and 'sheets_help'. Purpose is vague and not distinct.
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 description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.