Skip to main content
Glama
prafulstha98

google-sheets-mcp

by prafulstha98
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation: appending a row, reading a sheet, and updating a cell. There is no overlap in functionality, making it clear to an agent which tool to select.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern: append_row, read_sheet, update_cell. This makes the set predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the set is slightly lean but still reasonable for basic Google Sheets operations. It covers create (append), read, and update, but lacks a delete operation, which is a minor shortfall.

    Completeness3/5

    The set covers core CRUD operations except delete, and lacks ability to create or delete sheets themselves. Agents may need additional functionality for full lifecycle management, indicating notable gaps.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 24 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations present, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read data from a Google Sheet', which is a basic functional description. It does not mention safety, idempotency, rate limits, error behavior, or any other behavioral traits. For a read operation, minimal disclosure is acceptable, but it still falls short of providing useful behavioral context.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat minimal and could benefit from including sibling differentiation or a hint about the output format without losing conciseness.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does but lacks completeness in describing the output. It does not mention what the returned data looks like (e.g., an array of rows/values), which is important since there is no output schema. The description also omits any usage context like typical use cases or prerequisites.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'range' parameter that has a clear description and example ('Sheet1!A1:B10'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does its job.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'Google Sheet', effectively conveying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'append_row' and 'update_cell' which are write operations. However, it could be more precise by explicitly mentioning that it reads from a specified range, as indicated by the required 'range' parameter.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it's for reading, and siblings handle writing, the description lacks direct statements of when/when-not to use it, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from context.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose error conditions, permissions required, idempotency, or what happens if the sheet is empty. Only states the operation without depth.

    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?

    Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Appropriate for a simple tool with minimal parameters.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about return values, error handling, and operational behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. 'range' and 'values' are already defined in the input schema.

    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?

    The description 'Append a row to a Google Sheet' uses a specific verb (append) and resource (row to Google Sheet), clearly distinguishing from siblings 'read_sheet' and 'update_cell'.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_cell' for modifying existing rows or 'read_sheet' for reading. The description lacks any context for decision-making.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does 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 merely states 'Update' without explaining consequences like overwriting, idempotency, error handling, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity, the description adequately explains the basic operation. However, the absence of behavioral transparency (e.g., confirmation of overwrite) and no output schema leaves some gaps for an agent to confidently use the tool.

    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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('range' and 'value'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a specific cell in a Google Sheet'), making the tool's purpose instantly understandable. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'append_row' and 'read_sheet' by focusing on updating a single cell.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 tools are listed but not compared, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

google-sheets-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

google-sheets-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/prafulstha98/google-sheets-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server