Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google-Drive-MCP-Server

Google-Drive-MCP-Server

by pghoya2956
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gsheets_update_cell

Update a cell value in a Google Spreadsheet by specifying the spreadsheet ID, A1 range, and new value.

Instructions

Update a cell value in a Google Spreadsheet

Tool call template

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>",
      "range": "<range>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "gsheets_update_cell"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeYesCell range in A1 notation (e.g. 'Sheet1!A1')
valueYesNew cell value
fileIdYesID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation overwrites the existing cell value, does not describe permissions/authentication requirements, and does not indicate what is returned after the update.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose without filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but the description lacks behavioral details (e.g., overwrite behavior, return value) and usage alternatives. It is minimally adequate, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps for an agent assessing side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (fileId, range, value), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the term 'cell value,' which is the baseline expected when schema fully documents parameters.

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?

Description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('a cell value in a Google Spreadsheet'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like gsheets_read. It communicates exactly what operation is performed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when the goal is to modify a spreadsheet cell, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over gsheets_read or other siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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